{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1073","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Educational planning","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1073"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["692 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 9-155\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1065","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County Special School District's proposed exhibits for unitary hearing, Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County Special School District's proposed exhibits for unitary hearing, Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1065"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["542 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nExhibit numbers 10-21\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_608","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational statistics","Educational planning","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/608"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nProposed desegregation plan, site selection committee, news clippings\nI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I I PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN October 3,1988 n I Iobviate the need for compensatory and remedial programs in the higher grades. LRSD proposes that Gibbs Magnet be reorganized as a K-3 school and Rightsell Elementary (approximately four blocks from Gibbs) serve as the 4-6 international studies magnet. Also, Dunbar Junior High School J C \" ] (approximately two blocks from Rightsell and adjoining the Gibbs campus) will have a school within a school for international studies. The use of Gibbs/Rightsell as feeders for Dunbar will provide continuity for the ] international studies theme. The uses described above for Washington, Mitchell, Rockefeller, Ish and Rightsell may change if those I schools are needed to house enhanced schools. C. 1990-91 I I The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate I ( ] Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining Capitol Hill Complex. the The new Stephens will house pre- kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of 600 students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens Iwill be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. J The site for the new Stephens Elementary is approxi- mately one-half mile from Woodruff. i Woodruff has a capacity of 245 students and is situated in neigh- a 9 C - 9 borhood that has no real potential for white growth. I 9 9 9 9 0 9 Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use of this facility is to use it as the Instructional Resource Center (IRC). There is no need to continue to use Woodruff as a school after the opening of the new Stephens School. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, 7th Street and Center Street, In addition to being an interdistrict magnet. the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as natural magnet for individuals a 9 who work within governmental and business Little Rock. centers of III. Assignment Plan 3 The Little Rock School District proposes to use attendance zones for al*l of the non-magnet, non-enhancement schools. The zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary Stu- 1 13JOM S94OOS Jtapuafi Aq paqjodaj: qou aasaqi AjoBaqeo aoej u-I^U^Oh sqq ux squapnqs xYb jo jejoj,  OOT OOT OOT wr passed :iuaoaad 0 0 T T 0 0 T * T passed 'ON saavwaa aawio passed ^tuaoaad 0 0 0 0 pSSSGJ ON ^a4VW WUO OOT OOT OOT TOT passed 4uaojad T 0 T 0 0 T T 0 passed OM saavwaa aiiHM OOT OOT TCT passed 4uaoaad T 0 0 T 0 0 0 T passed 'ON saavw auLiHM S8 8S tV Si Si 9S passed :}uaojad QZ L iT ST passed \"ON saavwaj xavaa 6 S 9S 98 Si iS Ti Oi passed 4Uaojad ZT ST I? OT VT possvd 'ON saavw Hovaa 9 E8 Ti 9S 6 Ti Vi 9S passed ^Tuaojad TT iT 6Z SE VZ VE OT 8T OT iT 5Z SE sz OT 8T passed \"ON P94S9J, Oli sj^Naanis qqv T66T 066T 686T S3IiLVW3HJVW 886T T66T 066T 686T 3NIQV3U 886T AaviNSwaoa SNanaais :aoonDS L2  9  E aavao AHVHwns aoonos avnaiAiaNi T6-066T snnsaa isai, aoNvwaoaaad wnwiNiw svsnvhuv i.3iai.sia aooHos aooa aaiinSCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY 1988 I 1969 READING 1990 t 1991 1988 ALL STUDENTS No. Tested No. Passed 25 21 35 28 24 18 16 15 25 18 Percent Passed____ 84 80 75 94 72 SLACK HALES No. Passed 6 16 9 5 6 percK.nt Passed BLACK FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed I WHITE MALES Passed I Ko. Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES No. Passed Percent Passed OTHER HALES No. Passed Percent Passed OTHER FEMALES No. Passed percent_passed 86 9 75 4 100 1 100 * 1 100 73 11 92 0 0 * 1 100 69 9 82 0 0 0 0 100 6 86 1 100 0 * 3 100 u 86 6 50 4 100 1 100 * 1 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 1990-91  INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 6 MATHEI-IATICS 1989 35 26 74 16 73 9 75 0 0 * 1 100 1990 24 19 79 11 85 8 73 0 0 0 0 1991 16 15 94 5 100 6 86 1 100 0 * 3 100 1988 25 11 44 4 57 3 25 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 35 19 54 9 41 9 75 1990 24 13 54 7 54 6 55 1991 16 11 69 5 100 4 57 1988 25 9 36 3 43 1 8 SCIENCE 1989 35 10 29 7 32 2 17 1990 24 11 46 7 54 4 36 1991 16 11 69 5 100 A 57 1988 25 6 24 0 SOCIAL STUDIES 19B9 35 21 60 14 _61_ 19 9 0 24 14 58 8 .6^ 199 1 16 14 5 100 0 6 6 6 50 55 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 1 100 * 1 100 0 lOQ ion. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 0 * 2 67 1 I ii 0 0 I I * 1 1 0 A- 2 * 1 * 1 0 * 3 100 100 67 100 100 J 100 I Total o all students in the \"Other\" race category. These scores were not reported by gender.~ k Ml -tA \u0026lt; U U 4S *:i dIUM. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 621 I SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY I Percentile Sunmary N X N X N X N N X N X N 50 26 01 75 49 25 4 4 1 7 25 X 25X 6X 44X 7 5 3 L 44X 31X 1 9X 6X 5 3 4 4 31X 19X 25X 25X 5 3 5 3 31X 19X 31 X 19X 2 1 4 3 13X 44X 25X 1 9X 4 3 5 4 25X 19X 31X 25X 5 3 5 3 Nuabe Mean NatU.NCE 1 6 -48^ 16 1 6 51.0 1 6 52.9 1 6 48..t__ 16 46.8 1 6 52.6 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES Percentile Sumaary N X N X N X N X N X N X 50 26 01 r, 75 49 25 0 0 9 - -7 ox ox 56X - 44 X 5 7 2 31X 44X 13X ____g____ijx_____ -0 4 5 _ 7 _ OX 25X 31X 44X 0 4 6 6 OX 25X 38X 38X 5 5 0 6 31X 31 X OX 38X 5 3 5 3 31X 1 9X 31X 19X NuBbe Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1 6 34.5 1 6 58.5 1 6 37.4 1 6 41 . 8 1 6 51 .5 1 6 50.1 ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES Percent lie Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X ____.76 - 99__ 50 26 Qt  75 49 4 4 1 0 13X 13X 31X 12- 12 5 -14 -._ 44X - .3flX 3ex 1 6X _ 3____9X ..5___IfeX______ 7 9 1 1 22X 28X 34X 5 1 1 1 9 16X 2 ex 34X esx 7 1 2 4 9 22X 38X 13X 28X 9 6 1 0 7 esx 1 9X 31 X eex Number Tested Meaa_N\u0026lt;til,NCE 32 41.7 32 59_u6._. 32 J4.._ 32 47.4 32 49.8 32 49.5 31X 19X 31 X 1 37. e '^1 a COMPLETE BATTERY I-! N 0 4 6 6 1 6 41 . 7 X OX 25X 38X -'3 0 * ! 3 COMPLETE BATTERY 0 N X 5 7 1 1 9 1 6X 22X 34X 28X J 9 {-I 32 47.2 p.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 623 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 3 WHITE FEMALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat'1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1: TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BAS 1C BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY . N X' N N X  N Z 0 1 0 0 ' OX 1 OOX OX OX 10 00 1 OOX OX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 1 o' 0 0 100X ox ox ox 1 b 0 0 10OX OX OX ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX ox OX 1 0 0 ox ox ox 56.4 lLLT 1 1 86.9 57.0 1 1 67.7 72.8 1 1 54.2 68.5 TOTAL '  READING TOTAL...... MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X  N X\" N\" X N X 0 1 ox 100X \u0026gt; 0 ox 0 ox 1 0 0 0 100X OX OX OX 0 ox  1 1 oox 0 0 OX ox 1 100X 0 ox 0 0 OX ox 1 1 oox 0 '  ox 0 0 ox OX 0 0 0 OX 100X ox ox 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1  56.4 j\n1 1 1 86.9 57.0 67.7 1 1 72.8 54.2 1 68.5 TOTAL READING TOTAL - MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL ' STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N : X N X N X' N  N X N 2354 14X 21X 36X 29X 6 ,fe 4QX. b.. 5 31 33X 2 OX 7X A 7 3 2 20X 47X 20X 13X 3542 ^X 36X 29X 14X 2 4 3 6 23X 27 X 20X 4 OX 3 31 8 20X '2OX 17, 53X 2552 '36X 36X 14X 14 43. 1 15 62.2 15 52.7 14 49.5 1 5 46.8 15 45.3 1 4 48.9 JLd Itt ' 30 fl 29 2ft 19 Jit. 21 2^ a fl ftft, a 1  I  .1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: i^ir! STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 2 3 ?:iJ\n\n:ii ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING Percentile Sumeary TL 50 26 01 75 49 25 Nunber Tested ___neaii-MatJ-L-KCI N X tt I 1991 \u0026lt; MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY N X N X N r SCIENCE X N X ttJ6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES N X 10/07/91 PAGE 625 COMPLETE BATTERY N X 3 i' e to ^1 * t  ' * I - _j4- 6 1 1 4 14% 24X 44% A4X J.3 1 0 3 48X 37% 1 IX , 4Z 5_ 14 6 2 19X 52X 22X 7X ___6^.._.?45:____ 12 5 2 48X 2 OX ex 4 10 7 6 15X 37% ae-/. 22X 3 9 3 12 1 IX 33X 1 IX 44X 5 12 6 2 _20X 48X 24X 8X 16 It 25 ____45..6. 27 .46^3 27 54.0 25 5-2.12 27 ___50,4__, 27 - 45,5_ 25 51 .4 10 ti 21 ?.9 27 2 30 31 I : '  I J .'t . { :'e 33 I  i 42' ir'  bli } I\n  I  Jr f    'I Ui 2L 2l b3| '*  .'X-  . s ^S- \\ J- '^- 9 A,  ^,r V- jilt r **'1 \"O 7b'A 7O' y\n- J?1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6481 M6BYSC 1 0/07/91 PAGE 627 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS   j  TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percontll* Sunaary - N X u. N N X N X N X X N X * iT lO 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 A 1 2 5 ox 13X 25X 63X 3  . .38X 3  1 38X 13X 3 2 0 3 38X esx ox 38X 1 2 3 2 13X 25X 38X 25X 0 2 2 4 OX 25 X 25X 50X 0 2 3 3 OX 25X 38X 38X 1 o' 4 3 13Z OX SOX 38X t\nIB   Nunber Tested : Mtan_NtJ.LJiCt 8 A h-? 8 49.6 8 ___47..e_._ 8 40^6 8 __^.37..4 8 36.9 8 38.7 ALL BLACK ' I 'r-- 20 21 22 23 /jib Un Percentile Suaaary -TOTAL 1! READING \u0026gt; i' hi N X ___7$ .r_99. 50 26 75 49 Qi_r_25 Nunber Tested Mean Nat'I NCE e 13X TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY 28 27 N X N N X N N X N 30  1 .......   53X-'^TifeyBg ____ J In4 2 20X 40X 27X 2131 6 4 0 5 40X 27X OX 33X 3 4 4 4 20X 27X 27X 27X 1 5 2 7 7X 33X 13X 47X 2 4 4 5 13X 27X Z7/, 33X 3 2 4 6 20X 13X 27X 40X 15 ls.9  33 34 3B Jfi. J is '  in-nag^ irtffl Mt p ) I \u0026gt; J 15 54.6 15 46.6 15 40.7 15 42.9 15 44.5 401 i-4. JI 1'1 Miife  M'l,\nf  d I i / ' n-\n,  3\ns\u0026gt; ni 4 H k-! ' f* 'n't fils 'fr . - M 4 'It =3i 5-' 1 i n jr * ! \" J* 80 ( I I 88 I ** \"1 7 M  7i  n 7i 4 78 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 628 SCHOOL : GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunaary N X N X N X N X N X N X N 9 w J 6. 50 26 01 .n 75 49 25 2 3 9 Number Tested I -L3X. 13X 19X 56 X 3 6 4 3 9X. 38X 25X 5A 6____^38X_. 4 1 5_ 25X 6X 31 X 3 4 4 5 _._1?x _ 25X 25X 31X J_____65L 5 3 7 31 X 19X 44X ____2 4 5 _5 13X 25X 31X 31 X 3 2 4 7 19X 13X 25X 44X\n'i '-1 /.W- --if SrJ,\n:\n. * i '7* 16 _____Wan Naf 1 NCE \"l^t  jV: 38.3 16 51.6  16 ___54.1____ I 6 . 6. _ 4.14.\n:   1 e -40,7 16 ___4ga7_ 1 6 43.7. ^^e 'i .i-K* 'K's-' 2t Z2 .s-H jw- :a: a 29 '?^'- i *- 'A  *?!'  i\n, (   :r. t. liii :ii tlKS-' . ' 34 '1 3-1 !!4T h IBW E .'id/.i II4If \u0026lt; i 5? ! S.i' f ifi -Vi 11 Will ri era I :K V iSv\nSt iul 39 2\u0026lt;i. 37 30 39 o \u0026gt; -! y w I _ -  '! '   Ljpj. 4u' WB T ft 0^ ihi iP! all I '  .**: .V** ] ro'j  * tlf^ J.f\" r / i l-i4il\" 'it f IT .- 1 f? j'i' -rii 1 \u0026gt; . It i I* i\nj' H\n'-' . 1 Iff l ^^1 Vr SSlfe  .It ! 7v. V' Mtl .1 ij 5 ? e^'a e\n' e X'' I V I*  ' I. 2  Ip: -  21 ' J i\u0026lt;' I j'H  00 L 00' 071 OS 0 7} 'U:iq *1 t\n- . -. 72 73 zy ^7s.^  '\u0026lt; n'*- 4^' .at1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL:\" STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL' GRADE: 4 UHITE FEMALE TOTAL READING Percentile Summary N X ^OiMLL 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 629 COMPLETE BATTERY N ' X  N X  N X X N X 76 5 0 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 1 0 0 ox 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 '1 0 0 ox 1 d'dx OX ox 0 1 0 0 0^ 1 OOX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 oox \"OX ox OX 0 1 0 0 ox 1 oox ox ox 0 1 Q 0 ox iodx ox ox Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 . 0 63.5 52.1 61 . 0 82.7 59.9 64.2 UHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL  MATHEMATICS TOTAL ' LANGUAGE BASIC \" BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X 'N' X N X N X 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 0 ox \u0026lt; 0 dx 1 0 1 oox ox 0 ox o' dx 0 ox 0 ox 0 ox 0 i i*ddx ' 0 ox * 'f idox a ' 1 0 100X ox 0 0 OX OX 1 0 1 oox ox 0 0 OX OX 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox Number Tested Mean Nat*1 NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALL UHITE Percentile Summary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested . Mean Nat * 1 NCE 47.9 43.0 52.1 47.4 50.0 48.4 47.9 TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL  STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N x\" N X N X N' X N X 0 1 1 0 OX BOX BOX OX 0 r f. 1 1 0 SOX BOX ox 0 2 0 0 OX 1 OOX OX OX 0 1 1 0 OX BOX BOX OX 1 1 0 0 BOX BOX OX OX 0 f 1 0 ox 5 ox BOX OX 0 1 1 0 ox BOX  BOX OX 2 54,5 2 53.3\nj.y\n2 B2.1 s 54.2 s 66.4 2 54.2 2 56.1 1 . r.'i\ni  :t bl'. I J 3 s o 9 1 19 19 10 ?0 21 32 23 e 29 2 ( 20 90 31 33 34 39 2\u0026gt;. 36 4 5(1) 61 6 6\u0026amp;i 67| ' 6ei 63l 941 6^ Oft' 70' I 741 s 4- J r-' vi '^51 ? V '...A-A. w. I I I 0^' I1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91  1 1 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 BLACK FEMALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentll* Sunnary 7t - 99 50 26 _0i 75 49 Nuaber Tested ___ Mean NaVLLJiCE. BLACK MALE Percantila Suaaary 76 50 26 99 75 49 01 - g Number Tested Mean Nat'I NCE all I----- I 'i 1 I N X N X N X N X N X N X N BLACK 0 ox 2 7 1 0 1 IX 37X 53X 5 8 5 5X 26X 42X 26X X 6 5 7 5X 32X 26X 37X 0. e 4 3 OX 32X 21X 47X 0 5^ 59 OX 26X 26X 47X 0 5 e 8 -OX 26X 32X 42X 0 4' 1 Q 19 34.7 r 19 JJl if i.a. i 1 9 41.0  H 19 .31x5- 19 34.0 19 34_,3 1 9 36.0 TOTAL READING N X 0 OX 3 t9X 25X 56X I TOTAL MATHEMATICS  -g^iTOTAL 'V language BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N N X N N X N 1 6 35.5 TOTAL READING Percentile Suaaary : 50 26 _01 75 49 es. Nuaber Tested \u0026lt; Mean Nat * 1 NCE, N X 5 1 1 0_____ QX. 14X 31 X .\u0026gt;|9 B4X^ -35 \u0026lt;4\"\n35.1jg - 4 5 3A 25X 31X 1 9X _2 i 4 Mu' 5 5  13X 25X 31X 31X 0466 OX 25X 38X 3dX 1 4 Q 3 6X 25X SOX 19X 14 4 6X 25X 25X 7 44X 1 3 7 5 1 6 48.0 1 6 39.6 1 6 39.0 1 6 42.0 1 6 39.3 1 6 39.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N 1 0 1 1 _1 29X 3tX 26X _-3- 1 0 1 0 12 _9X 29X 29X 34X . 0 i 0 1 0 15 _ OX 29X 29X 43X 19 13 12 3X 26 X 37X 34X ___1_____ 3X 9 1 0 15 26X 29X 43X 17 1 4 13 35 44.8 di-\" i 35 35 .3Ba.9 35 ._37u7.__. 35 ____ 36_.4 35 37.4 t . .} . .r- V* y- :T if ex 19X 44X 31 X 3X EOX 40X 37X OX 21 X 37X 42X PAGE 630 X X I 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING 1991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE #16481 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 PAGE 631 COMPLETE BATTERY Prc#ntll Suamary 16 50 26 01_ 55_ 75 49. 25 N X N X N X N X N X N X N \u0026gt; Nuaber Tested ... Hean_N*tll_NCJE. 0 b 12 19 _QX 16X 32X 51X _5. 11 12 141 30X 32X 3 24X 3 12 1 0 12 8X 32X 27X 32X 0 OX 1 1 1 1 J5 30X 30X _41X -- .2 1 0 13 12 5X 27X 35 X 32X 1 10 11 15 3X 27X 30X 41X . 18 15 13 3X 22X 41 X 35X  'i^37   36.1 37 45^1 37 4-L.-0____ 37 ___38.9. 37 ____ 39.2__ 37 37.5 _ 37 _38.4__ -t t t'' gjg iTi-l T ial ip 1!^  i j'L- \u0026gt; T s iftS.  *-j I is ' H I is . . 4 t- Mi T 3 h\nv.:* 4*1 1 \u0026gt; IK' \ni : rf , Mai1l.  \u0026lt;\nh.gk J-\u0026lt;T: Jl -tol: 41 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 -------SCHOOL: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL GRADE: 5 WHITE MALE TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS Percent ile'Suamery N 'X 'N X' MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 63S SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY ----------------------- X  ---------N Z N  ... %'   -1 \u0026gt;  at* 9 54 50 36 01 75 49 25 1 0 0 0 1 OOX ox ox OX 1 0 00 1 OOX ox ox ox 0 1 0 0 OX 1 OOX \" OX OX 1 10 OX \"0 OX 0 0 OX OX 1 1 OCX 0~ OX 0 0 OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX J _  o' Q 0 1 OOX ox\" OX ox Number Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE ALL WHITE Percentile Suiaaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean Nat * I NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sunaary 76 50 26 01 99 75 49 25 Number Tested Mean NatU NCE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 65.6 99.0 62.9 78.2 99.0 86.9 84.6 TOTAL  READING TOTAV MATHEMATICS TOTAL  LANGUAGE BASIC\" BATTERY SCIENCE -----------SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X 'N  X N X N X N X' 1 0 0 0 1 65.6 l_0 0X OX OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 99.0 TOTAL READING N X 2 13 8 14X 7X 21 X 57X 1 4 39.3  -Uii- 100X OX OX OX 0 r 0 0 1 62.9 TOTAL MATHEMATICS N 14 7 2 14 47.8 X 7X 29X 50% 1 4X 1 OOX ox OX 1 0 0 0 1 78.2 TOTAL LANGUAGE N 43 4 3 1 4 49.3 X 29X 21 X 29% 21% 200X ox ox ox Ms IC BATTERY N 3 15 5 1 4 44.6 X 21X 7X 36X 36X 10 0 0 1 99.0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 0' 0 0 1 86.9 SCIENCE N 2 34 5 14X 21 X 29X 36X 1 4 44.3 1 0 0% ox.... 0% OX SOCIAL STUDIES N X 1 3 5 5 7X 21 X 36% 36X 1 4 41 .4 1 0 0 0 1 84.6 1 00% ox  OX ox complete BATTERY  N' 31 46 21 X 7X 29 X 43% 1 4 43.6 *  09 70 71 7a 73 74 3 \u0026lt;e 49 Bl\u0026gt; Bl -as\nwvw 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution ttJ6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 633 I SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 5 \u0026lt;1 ^1 Uli- w BLACK KALE TOTAL READING r TOTAL MATHEMATICS . I-. TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sunaery Li - N X 50 26 01 Al 75 49 25 2 33 4 t 0\n.^'  Nuaber Tested ______ Mean Net*1 NCE 17X 25X 25X 33X N. . .4 5 12 X N X N X X N Z N...............X \" 12 __45.7 12 56.7 ALL bii. BLACK TOTAL READING Percent lie Sunnary N X 76 99 50 - 75 4 J. 26 49 Ot - 25wb' 446 12. 15X isx 23X 462^ Number Tested b Mean Net * 1 MCE \u0026gt; 26 42.3 -F Sir OTHER FEMALE ? Percent i1 -.4  . Suamei^y TOTAL READING X 50 26 75 49  1 0 0 01 - 5 OX ox Number Tested ______-Mean _Netl_NCK w s O * 4. I  i * 75.8 * -VI JiX .1.' { _L33X. 42X 8X 17X 0 ox 5 4 3 5 12 J TOTAL MATHEMATICS N X 33X 25X 42X 2 4 4 17X 33X 17X 33X \u0026lt; g 3 3 4 ^75^ 25X 25X 33X 3 42 3 25X 33X 17X 25X 3 333 25X 25X 25X 25X 12 48.3 12 41._8 12 51.3 12 48.2 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N Z 5 9 8 A 19X 35X 31X 15K 47 7 8l 15X 27X 27X 31 5 57 9 1 9X 1 9X 27X 35X - 6 7 3 15X 23 X 33'A 4 71 8 15X 27X 27X 31 X 6 4 7 3 23X 15X 27X 35X 26 51.9 26 46.0 26 46.3 26 44.4 26 46.0 26 45.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N X N X N X N X N X 0 0 0. 1 ^6^9 J-MX. OX ox ___ ox 0 0 0 1 H ' ! ?  4 i 1 OOX OX OX ___OX 1 0 0 lopx ox ox _____0_____ oz 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 6 0 0 1 OOX ox OX OX 1 0 0 0 1 OOX OX OX OX 1 1 1 1 53.3_____ Q3 84.6 82.7 6622'' 67 96 90 92'I ^1 0.* 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution #J6431 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 635 SCHOOL: STEPHENS fNCENflVE GRADE: 5\nr WaiaMb,^, 6i z 1 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL ~ READINS't: \u0026lt; Percentile Sunmary If. .,^.-111 :  ..T0TAL\n:^3,1u.ur*\n4 MATHEMATICS ' LANGUAGE 76 'so S6 01 99 75 49 S5 6 4 e 1S\naix : 1 4X SIX 43X Nunber Tested Mean Nat' 1 N^ 28 44.3 z. \u0026gt;s f \n.' if is   : LLiM.^ / ltJU.Z4 . ',9ii?'a\n38M . 8 !h. e9j{! 4  4x4:' 28 fl, 54.9 3v t-, i-  r.Tin^ I \u0026gt; BASIC Ji jl:BATTERlf?2) ii T SS5X nrrr - * -. r. \\\n.- [W!tris'\n*r- SS!!iLi|2dt^ I Social STUDIES --------- COMPLETE BATTERY  N X B lO 11 12 13 SIX S5X S5X S9X 29X 14X 25X 32X 8 4 1 3 1 1 Q SIX asx 3SX 7 9 T . 28 uijj- , ' SB 47.8 S8 48.7 S8 48.8 .S' 49  0 \u0026gt;1)1,\nit? u. I- v i. J -^y r3{\n:i -ffil. .-iHftpr ! r iW Ji.i 1 li J ' IB IB 17 18 10 20' 21 22 29 24 29 20 27 I 1 t i\n4\nr T '1^- 29 SO 31 I 1\ni'\": n * L \u0026lt; I- ili ipii 33 31 SB S'i 4S 4n. 48 B\u0026amp; Bt 63 B4i bbI Ba| n 68 I 6' I ul i r Wv f II '\u0026lt; 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 UHITE MALE TOTAL READING 1 991 TOTAL MATHEMATICS MAT-6 Distribution TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE J6461 M6BYSC SOCIAL STUDIES 10/07/91 Percentile Sunmery N X N X N N X N X N ... 50 26 01 75 49 25 A 0 1 0 OX. ox 1 oox ox 0 1 0 OX OX 1 OOX OX 0 0 01 OX ox OX 1 OOX 0 6 0 1 __ ^OX ox OX 1 oox 0 01 0 OX OX 1 OOX ox 0 01 0 ox ox 1 oox ox Number Tested _._Hean_NatJ L.J(CE. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALL UHITE Percentile Sumsary 76 50 26 99 75 49 _01 _rL.25. Number Tested __Me a n_ Na t * 1 NCE BLACK FEMALE Percentile Sumnary J 6. 50 26 75 49 ._0L_-_g5^ Number Tested .nftAn_NatJ_E_NCE .57 k   36.5 35,1_ 45,2 40.1 TOTAL READING TOTAL , TOTAL MATHEMATICS .. . LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N X N X N X N X N X N X 0 0 1 A 1 37.7 OX OX 1 OOX ___ ex. 0 01 JL 1 36.5 TOTAL READING N X ox OX  100X ' 0 ox ox vo^ ox -11-l1_1jOOX 0 o 0 OX ox OX 0 01 OX OX lOOX 32.3 1 100X P______OX___ 0 0 1 0 OX ox 1 oox ox 1 35.1 1 1 45.2 40.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES N N.:\nX N X 2 2 2 29X 29X 29X 2\u0026gt; 4  01 29X  57X OX 14X J 2 ./.i 3 J 1,. N N X\n7 47.Q 7 63.2 -i 7 5S. 0 'i i w 1 i.- ' Ji!. ll J  .1i \u0026lt; sxkt: ,*^r41 7 JJX______ 29X 43X 14X \u0026gt; ili' 'M . \u0026lt; *5 .1 4 1 1 57X 14X 14X J.  . 29X 1 4 - 57X 7 .53.u5_ 0 ' 1 ' ____ OX 3 21 14X 43X 29X 14X 7 JJ_,6____ 4 ei 2V 90 31 48 M 99 94 90 IL 97 J  Ji 99 JS 41 42 .f PAGE 636 COMPLETE BATTERY N X 0 0 1 0 1 37.1 OX ox 1 OOX ox COMPLETE BATTERY N X 061 0 1 37.1 ox OX 1 oox ox COMPLETE BATTERY N 41 1 7 ___53.7_. X MX 57X 14X 14X 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t V .1991 j .I'...- SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL,. 6  ' lO- ' . i-t l^r' I MAT-6 Distribution J6481 M6BYSC 10/07/91 PAGE 637 BLACK MALE TOTAL READING } . TOTAL . MATHEMATICS Percentile Sunnary N . X N X\n76---99 50 26 01 75 49 25 1 3 0 eox 20X sox _ox 2 03 0 OX 60X OX 5 TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N X N : N X N X N X J 2 11 20X 4 OX 20X 20X Q. 4 1 0 OX 80X 20X OX 1 4 0 0 29X SOX OX OX 3 60% 1 1 0 20X 20X OX _P_____ OX 41 0 sox 20X ox Number Tested MtarvNatlLMCE. 5 .51^. 5 54^ 5 53-. 6____ 5 -53,4 _ 5 _____ 57,3________ 5 59.5 5 ______55.3 _ ALL BLACK TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Sumnary N X N X N X N X N X N X N 76 50 26 99 75 49 ____ s I ^7'- 17X 25X 42X 7X. 4 43  Nunber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE i 33X 33X esx 8X. 24 42 17X 33X 33X J7X 1 6 21 dX S7X 17X 8X 2 6 4 0 17X BOX 33X OX 4 43 1 33X 33X 25X ex 1 8 21 8X 67X 17X 8Z OTHER MALE 12 49.9\n.TOTAL ' / READING Percentile Sunnary/ N . /. X BQ 99 75 49 1 - 1 QflX. QI - 25 0 00 ox OX 12 59.4 12 52.7 12 53.5 12 55.3 12 54.9 1 2 54.4 Nunber Tested -Bean Nat* 1 MCE 1 67.7  u TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANCUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY N 1 0 0 A 1'\n' 71 fa X .. . 10,0X. OX OX OX 221 'a/  f: N X N X N X N X N X .0 10 ___ Q\nt 1 OOX ox .0_____ OX 1 -55\u0026gt;9 ____1. 0 0 _ 0 -LOO-X. OX ox ox^ _-,l__.l00.X. 0 00 ox ox ox___ J__ 1JQX_ 0 0 ____0___ OX OX OX 1 JLvJQ. ei 11 V 10 0 0 1 10 OX___ ox ox OX iQ,.J_____ i BOi 3\u0026gt; 22 23 IS 2B IBO -t. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution SCHOOL: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL GRADE: 6 \u0026gt; ALL OTHER TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASl'C?\nyfe^ BATTERY^^ Percohtilo SuBsary x N X X 76 5 0 26 01 33 75 49 25  H 1 \u0026lt; 100X 4 1\n100X- 0 OX i? 0\nox 0 ox 0 0 0 NuBber Tested Mean Nat * 1 NCE H 67.7 i OX OX ox\n-2 0 , 10 0 OX 10 0X OX OX rk   .  'V 71 .8, /\ni ii'VfiSi hi\nif  b -\u0026gt; 1 ' 55.9 , t h  -' . r.\n j ? 5-' MiaBiii S r if -L .1 i -i *1' Vi . I k'. rJ ^ .% tt t f , 'T T 1 . t J' j* k'1 ' L . .i. ' . I  '* I'jf'F. ' \u0026gt;* I 'L'r I M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 638 Bence N\" X K 1 1 68.5 70.1 3S .. . JS-SOCIAL  STUDIES XOHPreTE BATTERY 37 38 30 40 OOX OX OX OX 100X ox' ox ox 100X OX\" OX OX 20 30 1 o' 0 0 1 IT 0 0 J6481 3 0 0 OX ' P0.! I i  M.  i^,' w ...TJiw epi^\nr  \u0026lt;?'  - 'T  f-' ' '': r OL.ki T T .tr .Huteiir 4)^ t TP\n i If ,! fl  3 J U'i (!P- ' * 8 iimi, 4?*- . 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 991 MAT-6 Distribution J64ei M6BYSC 10/07/91 PACE 639 1 SCHOOL: GRADE: STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 6 ALL STUDENTS TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS TOTAL LANGUAGE BASIC BATTERY SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES COMPLETE BATTERY Percentile Summary N X N X N X N X N X N X N X 76--T, 99 50 Zb 01 75 49 25 3 3 6 2 21 X 21X 43X 14X 5 4 4 1 6X 29X 89X ir. 2 5 4 3 1 4X 36X 29X 21X 2 8 2 2 14X 57X 14X 14X 3 6 5 0 21X 43X 36X OX 5 4 4 1 36X 29X 29X 7X 2 8 3 1 14X 57 X 21 X 7X Number Tested Mean Nat^kHCE. 14 5\u0026lt;L.3.. 14 58^7 1 4 5_l^5 1 4 53 ,J 14 56.4 1 4 54.8 1 4 54.3 I d I I I 1.\n '1'- A * T STEPHENS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT GRADE LEVEL 4-year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CBI TOTAL PERCENT B 225 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL % BLACK M F M F M F 6 2 3 1 12 67% 5 19 1 25 96% 18 21 2 41 95% 21 13 16 18 21 5 123 50% 1989-90 W 0 T 0 1 226 14 12 7 23 14 1 113 46% % Blk 100% 1 1 5 3 1 B 191 2% 1% 1990-91 W 0 T % Blk B 5 7 203 94% 236 35 25 23 41 37 6 245 1991-92 W 0 T 8 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 96% % Blk 245 96%ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT Or EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN VERIFICATION FORM 1991-1992 School Building: .Name, Address, Zip) Stephens Incentive School 3700 West 18th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pulaski County 60-01-041 LEA Number \"el ephone: 671-6350 School District: (Name, Address, Zip) Little Rock School District October 1, 1991 DATE 510 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 \"elephone: (501 ) 324-2000 =lease submit one copy of the Annual School Improvement Plan for each school\ny October 15, 1991.* in The distric* Lonnie S. Dean Principal Ruth Steele rm nosnt of - Prin Signature of wLipsri fl tcftCc Dr. L  n a  K** I School Building Task Force Please send to: Lonnie S. Dean Earlene Fowler Associate Director Instructional Services Arkansas Department of Educ. n Michelle Ellington Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mamie Wilkins Doretha Grimes Six-Year Plen Report rorm, Revised 3/S9 I\u0026amp; I 5. I Is I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nMISSION STATEMENT of the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADA The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential, that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: (J *\n basic education for all students\n(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)\nand (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and.athletics. Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. To (1) a program of Adopted 1-26-84  K ? S Di strict Goals 1 1 0 i ncrease educational achievement for al 1 s tudents wi th 2. 3. specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 1 0 establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) b) c) d) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community' and the workplace providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators.MISSION STATEMENT o f STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL The staff at Stephens Elementary is commited to the development of the whole child, strive to provide an environment where children are actively involved in their learning and feel comfortable taking a risk. We recognize that our children arrive with varied backgrounds and a wide range of interest, experiences and abilities. It is with this recognxtion that we provide a learning environment with meaningful opportunitites for children to grow in This is best achieved through a creative, integrated-their language development. curriculum with a focus on literacy.1. Stephens Incentive School Goals 1991-92 The principal and staff will develop and implement a plan that will increase the educational achievement of all students and decrease the disparities between male and female students and increase the number of all students that are on or above grade level as measured by SAT and AMPT scores by the end of the 1991 1992 school year. 2. The principal and staff will establish climates of educational excellence at Stephens through\na. b. c. d. implementing multi-cultural educational programs to enhance the learning of all students at Stephens Incentive School\neducational and motivational programs to increase student participation and interest in school\nopportunities for all students to be actively involved and experience success in the curriculum and in all extra-curricular activities\nthe number of students referred to the principal's office for disciplinary reasons and out of school suspension will be decreased. 3. The principal and staff will implement strategies for improving human relations skills as measured by the LRSD Quality Education Survey.PART ONE assessmeni/analysis of local school ACCOMPLISIiMENTS AND NEEDS IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHED DISTRICT GOALS We have forty-one (41) students assigned to first grade, three (3) repeaters. thirty-three (33) students assigned to second grade, twenty-five (25) students assigned to third grade, twenty-two (22) students assigned to fourth grade, forty (40) students assigned to fifth grade, thirty-seven (37) students assigned to sixth grade and nine (9) students assigned to resource. Each teacher wrote specific Educational Improvement Plans to address each students needs and lesson plans are written and lessons are taught based on these identified needs. Teachers are using all available resources to ensure students are being taught and learning is taking place. Our students needs are being met through the basic curriculum and the following support programs and activities: Gifted Education (Enhance The Chance), Resource, Special Education (Self-contained), Art, Physical Education, Counseling, Music, Media (REACH), Young Author s Conference, Good Citizenship and Scholastic Honor Rolls, Role Models, VIPS, Partners-In- Education, ARKLA Gas, CARE Program, Student Team Learning, Whole Group Instruction, Activities To Promote Higher Order Thinking Skills, One-To-One Instruction, Student Education Plans, Field Trips and Extended Day Classes. Student behavior will continue to improve through the use of our positive discipline plan, rewards and incentives from the counselor and teachers, role models, mentors, positive telephone calls to parents, classroom visitation by me to talk with the students, individual student conferences, counselor's group and classroom sessions. academic awards and good citizenship assemblies at the end of each nine weeks, early C_ __ -1- 'o morning and late evening conferences for our working parents and the \"Principal's Honor Roll\" displayed in the hall by the office door. At Stephens School, we will keep our students in school, we use whatever intervention strategies necessary to keep our students in school. All staff members and some parents will participate in reviewing, revising and writing our \"Positive Discipline Our staff understand that we will be fair, firm and consistent as we implement Plan\". : this plan. We will keep our students on task, we will teach each student every day. i Teacher contact time will not be interrupted, meaningful homework will be sent home : this plan. daily and immediate feedback provided. Stephens School staff helped to write our copy of the plan to use as a guide for assuring plan and each staff member will have a strategies and activities are being implemented that will lead to the accomplishment of our school and district goals. Parent involvement will increase through PTA memberships, volunteers, tutors and , r r . 1 J   chaperones for field trips.I  SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ' annual school IMPiiOVEMENT PLAN Little Rock Stephens Inceptive DATE October'I, 1991 Principal and staff will develop and Implement a plan that will Increase the educa * ... ______________1nnzi f1 o ol'iirlont'c nnn 1 nr.rCAS tlonal achievement of al! students and decrease the disparities between male above grade level as measured by SAT students that are on or school year. oOah No. Slralegies/ActiyiUes and female students and Increase the number of all 1: To Increase educational achievement for all parities in achievement. Person Responsible and AMP Test scores by the end of 1991-1992 students with specific emphasis on closing dis- Completion Date/ Time Lines Related Stall Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Each teacher will analyze MAT-6, AMPT and EPSF test scores and write edu- catlonal plans for each student based on the findings, and determine changes needed in skill .emphpsis and teaching styles. Classroom Teachers PAL Math and Reading Teachers Principal Media Specialist Resource Teacher Counselor August 19, 1991 On-goJ ng Workshops and mini-courses provided through LRSD Staff Development Department SAT, AMPT.EPSF Test scores on file in Principa1's office. Each teacher will analyze test scores to determine Classroom Teachers Principal August 19, 1991 On-going strengths and weaknesses and develop daily plans to address identified needs. Workshops in: Learning Styles TESA\nPET\nClassroom Management, Cooperative Learning Educational plans, reading ,and math progress sheets on file in Principal's office. Ijildmg Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 1: (Contd.) ^elaied Dislricl Goal\nSlrategips/Activities Each teacher will use high interest materials to encourage achievement . Teachers will send home a list of books for their students reading Level. Parents will  rdad to or listen to the students read, sign to verify, teachers will reward students for the number of books read. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Gifted Specialist Media Specialist Computer Specialist Principal/Counselor Classroom Teachers Principal Media Specialist Counselor Parents Gifted Specialist PAL Reading and Math Teachers Completion Date/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Related Staff Development Activities Learning Styles Cooperative Learning\nPET\nWorkshop on making and using manlpulatives Gifted Education Learning Styles PAC Workshops Adult Education Classes Method ol Evaluation SAT, AMPT, EPSF and Teacher-n.ade test. List of books read on file in classroom and principal's office. Iuilding Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 1: (Contd.) delated District Goal\nStraleqigs/Aclivities E.TCll 'At Risk\" student will have an assigned tutor and a folder with materials and activities based on identified needs. Eacli student will write a book. These books will be read at the Young Author's Conference. Incentives will be given to foster good behavior In the classroom - - Room Monitors, Office Monitors, Media Monitors, Peer Tutors, special reports highlighting special events and days. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Completion Date/ Timo Lines Related Staff Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Classroom Teachers Counselors Instructional Aide VIPS\nVolunteers\nPrincipal\nStudent Classroom Teachers Media Specialist Reading Teacher Gifted Specialist Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Gifted Specialist Media Specialist  August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Cooperative Learning Roster o peer tutors on file in Principal's office. Writing Across The Curriculum Positive Disclpllnt Plan Number of books completed for student. eacli Decrease In the number of students referred to the Principal's office, and the number of out of school suspensions.uilding Goal\nHo- SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL 1: (Contd.) telaied District Goal\nSlrategies/Activities All classroom teachers and support staff will receive training in a PET refresher course, TESA, Classroom Management, Cooperative Learning, Learning Styles, and participate in workshops proxijlded through LRSD Staff Development. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION annual school improvement plan Little Rock School District Stephens Incemitlye Person Responsible Principal Stephens Staff Parents DATE October 1, 1991 Completion pate/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going Related Stall Development Activities How to prepare for standardized test without teaching to the test Method ol Evaluation SAT, AMPT and EPSF Test results and roster of participants.SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL___ KiiilOint) Goal: he 1.11 e\u0026lt;l Dislricl Goal\nti (I I fl) It s/Acl i vi Li^ ARKANSAS annual I.ITTLE ROCK______ Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Mastery of Time Tables by 3rd Grade Recruitment for Family Learning Center through classrooms increased use of math manipulatlves department de education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Completion Date/ T i Ilie Lines DATE October 1, 1991__ LUI I Development Activi ties Method ol EvdliiatitHi___ Second and Third Teachers Math Lab Tutors computer Teclinician Family Learning Center Coordinator Teachers Classroom Teacher Pal Math Teacher May 30, 1992 November. 1, 1991 May 30, 1992 Use of manipul- atives in the classroom Teacher Test, LRSD Test AMPT, and SAT EPSF Scores, SAT Classroom performance. Number of students in Family Learning Center Teacher Plan BookSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BiiiliiiiKJ Goal: Ri\nI\u0026lt;11eu Disli'icL Goal: 11 a I i\ni) i(\ns/AcLi vi lies Teacher ARKANSAS DEPARfMENT OT EDUCATION annual SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN LITTLE ROCK Stephens Incentive DATE October 1, 1991 will correlate new social studies text and visuals with Multi-cultural guide (new revised edition), when teaching toward the objectives of achievement tests. Updating library books, materials, films, etc. Make library environment more that focus inviting with centers on current social studies and science objectives and other content areas. Test-taking strategies (more oral questioning, sample questions) Person Responsibie staff Library Media Speciallst/Staff Library Media Specialist/Staff Teacher, Principal, Specialty Staff Cornpie lion Dale/ Time Lines Related Staff Development Activities Method Ol Evaludti^ii On-golng On-going On-going On-going District Curriculum Guide Update Service Inservice on correlating library centers with classroom Related Inservice provided by District SAT, AMPT, Planbook, Visuals, Teacher made tests Inventory of new material Student sign-in sheet. Students' Interest and attitudes toward llhrarj and related activities SAT, AMPT 1SCHOOL DISTRICT l.riTLE ROCK SCHOOL III iili111] (10(11 : 1.1,11 cd Ol sLi' id Cioal\n11 .Il (.''III /ja: l_i V ijj 'lore individualized instruction. More ARKANSAS DLPARIMENI DI EDDCAiION annual school improvement PEAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Staff coorelation between classroom teacher and specialist. Improve self-esteem of individual st ndent. black Closing the disparity between achievement and behavior, by ma I e having male mentorships (teachers or volunteers.) Aides to room so work longer in the class teacher can work closer with small groups remed la t ion. who need More parental involvement. Staff Staff Staff, Sponsors, Volunteers Principal, LRSD Parents, Staff Completion Dale/ Time Lilies____ Pel died staff Pevel opnien L Adi vi lies Helhod ol Lvaliialioii__ On-going On-going On-going On-going On-going On-going Writing and implementation of SEP'S Grade level meetings Workshops on esteem self- SEP, Journal of student Conferences, Planhook Agendas Self-esteem inventory Black male suspension Disparities rate between Black male and Black female. Instructional aide schedule, VIPS sign-in sheetSCHOOL 01 SID I CT I.T ITLE ROCK SCHOOL III I iliiii| Goal : r I ,ii (mI Hi sir ir I Goa 1: 11.11 i.'i) 11 /^: l_i vi tics Study test data for Language by grade level. Arts akkansas annual DUPAUIhENI or EDUCAT 1 UN SCHOOL improvement PEAN DATC_ October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person DesponsiOle Staff Correlate test objectives LRSI) curriculum guide with the Staff Incorporate writing across the curriculum to provide more practice writing and as a check for comprehension Whole group instruction in language mechanics Staff Staff Completion Date/ Ijiii^iftes August 23, 1991 August 23, 1991 On-going thereafter On-going On-going Delated Stafl Development Activi ties___ Language Arts Instruction Writing Across the Curriculum Writing Process Method ol Lvaluatioj!___ Results of study List of objectives Samples of written Teacher planbook work ISCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock SCHOOL 'fijjiIding Goal: 2: ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement PLAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive The Principal and Staff will es A for all students through: . ,of all students at Stephens Incentive School. Related District Goal. excellence in atablish climates of educational excellence at - implementing multi-cultural educational programs Stephens Incentive School to enhance the learning all school? through: A - providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environments. Related Staff strategies/Activities Awards for continued good behavior Each student will be instructed in the Elementary rights and responsibilities handbook and Stephens discipline plan. Display school rules in halls. Workshops on self-image for students. Be consistent with discipline. Person Responsible Completion Date/ Time Lines Development Activities Method of Evaluation Staff staff and Students Staff Principal, Staff LRSD Staff Development Staff On-going At beginning of year and periodically thereafter On-going On-going On-going Share ways of positive affirmation Preventive discipline Self-esteem Classroom Management discipline management Improved behavior List of positive phone calls Teacher Plan Book Observation List of workshops and participants Teacher anecdotal records.V ai iicccisdi/ ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan  lilding Goal\nNo. SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL Stephens Incentive 2: B - Principal and staff will provide educational and motivational programs participation and Interest In school. to increase student dialed Dislricl Goal\nNo, 2: To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: B - Enabling all students to develop a life-long capacity and love for learning. Slralegies/Activities Teachers/parents will ac- quire Central Arkansas Library Cards (CAL) for Stephens School students. Staff will be responsible for monthly assemblies, special day's assemblies and activities. Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Media Specialist Principal Counselor Parents S tudents Classroom Teachers Counselor Support Staff VIPS Parents Completion Date/ Time Lines August, 1991 On-going August, 1991 On-going Related Stall Development Activities Cooperative Learning Learning Styles Self-esteem Human Relations Method ol Evaluation Roster of each classroom group on file in Principal's office. Agendas filed In Principal's office, number of students receiving Good Citizenship awards and student of the week recognition. 1j-.t. Ui nucefvsaiy ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION annual school IMPROVEMENT PLAN SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL Stephens Incentive uilding Goal\nNo. 2\nC - The principal and staff will provide opportunities for all students to be actively Involved to experience success in the curriculum and in all extra-curriculum activities. lelated Dislricl Goal\nNo. 2: To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: - Leading all students to be productive contributors In the school, community and the work place. C Strategies/Activilies Each teacher will assess the needs of students, write Educational Plans for all students, plan 1essons color-code to hlgbllebt the using of and following of the multi-cultural curriculum guides. Activities will be planned to assure all students obtain mastery. Students will be taught on their instructional level - cross grouping If necessary. Person Responsible Completion Date/ Time Lines Related Stall Development Activities Method ol Evaluation Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Media Specialist Gifted Specialist PAL Reading and Math Teachers August 19, 1991 On-going Workshop on Lesson Plan Writing TESA Cooperative Learning Classroom Management Learning Styles SAT, AMPT, EP.SF Test scores. Teacher-made Test, Math Test, Magazine Test and Reading Inventories.c-r'.cjic OL netcssai/ ) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school improvement plan ,uilding Goal: SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock DATE October 1, 1991 SCHOOL No. 2: D Stephens Incentive - The number of students referred to the principal's office for disciplinary reasons and out of school suspensions will be decreased . delated Dislricl Goal\nNo. 2: To establish climates of educational excellence In all schools through: D - Providing a disciplined. structured learning environment for all students. Slrategi.es/Activilies Teachers will teach planned lessons based on LRSD and Stephens School goals and objectives, keeping students focused on academic tasks, teaching on appropriate instructional level and assuring that all student's assigned to them are successful, providing positive feedback as skills are mastered. Students will be involved in writing class/school rules. These rules will be taught and expectations stated clearly. Self-discipline will be taught. Copies o rules and evnectatlons f Person Responsible Classroom Teachers Support Staff Principal Instructional Aides Classroom Teachers Students Parents Counselor Complelion Dale/ Time Lines August 19, 1991 On-going August, 1991 June, 1992 Related Stall Development Activities TESA PET Classroom Management Learning Styles Cooperative Learning Classroom Management TESA Method ol Evaluation Number of students entered on Discipline list, number of referrals to Pupil Services, number of students receiving Good Citizenship awariis, trophies and certificates. Number of students receiving Good Citizenship certificates, awards and trophies. Number of positive responses on Qualit\u0026gt; Education survey.ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION annual school IMPROVEMENT PLAN uilding Goal\nSCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL No. 2: D (Contd.) delated Dislricl Goal\nNo 2:d (Contd.) Little Rock Stephens Incentive DATE October 1, 1991 Slralegies/Activilies Person Responsible Completion Dale/ Time Lines Related Stall Developmenl ActivUies Melhod ol Evaluation sent home, signed receipts filed to verify parents received, read and understood the behavior expected at school. positive responses on Principal's Parent surveys.SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock SCHOOL 'BfjiIding Goal: 'Related District Goal: Strategies/Activities A group picture will be made. Teachers will pair as tl 'mentors . ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATE October 1, 1991 Stephens Incentive Person Responsible Principal Classroom Teachers Principal Counselor Completion Date/ Time Lines August, 1991 September, 1991 Related Staff Development Activities Human Relations Stress Management Human Relations Method of Evaluation Copies of picture on file in Principal's Office. Decrease in staff turn-over, staff attendance. Subscribe to periodicals, books, pamphlets on human relations for staff and parents. Stephens Staff Choir. Staff, Parents Building Climate Committee and Professional Growth Committee Music Teacher Staff August 19, 1991 June, 1992 September, 1991 On-going Human Relations Human Relations Staff Morale Number of staff members listed on check-out cards. List of members and results of Human Relations surveys.Target: School Climate Outcome: improvement plan Increased awareness of the need of safe and secure measures for all students and staff at Stephens Incentive SU.ool. ACTION All exit doors will be checked to assure door locks are working properly. The gates are unlocked each morning and locked at the close of the school day. All exit doors will be locked from the outside, and all staff, parents, and visitors will enter through the front doors. All classroom doors will be locked from the outside. All parents and visitors will sign-in at the office before going to the classroom. Principal or principal's designee will accompany parent to classroom. Visitors will remain in office, staff will come to office to receive visitors during their breaks. Request official ID Tags for all staff. Provide security for evening/ night meeting. RESPONSIBILITY Principal Custodians Principal Custodians Staff: I Support Certified, Classroom Teachers Principal Principal Classroom Secretary Principal Secretary Principal Teachers TIMELINE June, 1991 On-going June, 1991 - On-going June 23, 1992 August 12, 1991 August 26, 1991 September, 1991 September, 1991 On-going RESOURCES LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD Security Custodian Staff STAFF DEVELOPMENT LRSD EVALUATION DATA Memo was sent to Assistant Superintendent stating conditions of door locks.  Daily walk-through checking doors/gates. Daily walk through by Principal Visitor Sign-in sheets on file in the office An orderly school climate. Principal survey number of staff wearing ID tags dally. Decrease in incidents reported.Target\nSchool Climate Outcome\nIMPROVEMENT PLAN Increased awareness of the need of safe and secure measures for all students and staff at Stephens Incentive cliool. ACTION Establish procedures for emergency playground safety in the event of a \"drive by' weapons attack during morning recess, lunch recess or P.E. Establish procedures for entering building when there is an emergency. Maintain procedure for fire, tornado, or earthquake drills. Develop a School emergency code. RESPONSIBILITY Staff Staff Staff Staff TIMELINE September, 1991 On-going September, 1991 September, 1991 September, 1991 RESOURCES Staff Staff School Emergency Safety Plan School Emergency Safety Plan STAFF DEVELOPMENT Meeting with Staff on It, School Emergency/ Safety Plan EVALUATION DATA Reduction In time to exit playground. Reduction in time to exit playground. Reduction in time to complete drills. Principal survey staff, and students to ascertain understanding of code. ITarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery In the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase. ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA WORD RECOGNITION Use flashcards to practice recognition of sight words. Use a list of words with prefixes and suffixes added, to identify base words by dividing between the prefix or suffix and the base word. Practice writing abbreviations,, by writing friendly letters, addressing envelopes and dating daily assignments. Practice recoginzing abbreviations from flashcards. Match synonyms together using cards by playing a concentration game. Match antonyms together using cards by playing a concentration game. Read paragraphs containing unknown words in boldface type. Match the unknown word with its correct meaning. Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 Basal series Dolch Sight Word list English series Basal series English series Basal series English series English and Basal series English and Basal series Basal series Cooperative Learning PET TESA Classroom management Self-esteem Learning Styles Teacher Observation AMPT scor^es Teacher Observation AMPT scores Teacher Observation AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery in the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase ACTION Use sentences on sentence strips containing unknown RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA words. Use context and syllabrication to decode the unknown words. Match words with prefixes and suffixes to their correct meaning by drawing lines. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Basal series English series Trade Books Spelling, English and Basal series AMPT scores AMPT scores ITarget: Outcome: ACTION IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students mastery In the areas of. dpfirlr in Rpadinp, Thg peT-cntao of criiHau.t-c. will Incrcoaev COMPREHENSION: Read paragraphs from set of cards. Select correct main idea by choosing a, b, or c. Read or listen to stories. Recall important facts by answering comprehension questions. Given a list of causes, write an effect that make sense. . While reading a story, stop at different sections to predict what will happen next. Given a list of titles of books, group them into fiction and nonfiction. Read sentences containing pronouns then attach the correct meaning of the pronoun by coosing a, b, or c answers. Brainstorm different feelings and words associated with those feelings. RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, On-going 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, On-going 1991 August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going Basal series Trade Books Basal series Trade Books Basal series IRC materials Basal series Trade books. English series Basal series English series Basal series Trade books AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores IIMPROVEMENT PLAN ,Target\nTeach students mastery in the areas of deficit in Reading. The percentage of students will increase Outcome: ACTION Read about different characters. Identify thei\nemotions/moods from information given in the paragraph or story, by choosing the correct a, b, or c answer. STUDY SKILLS: Look up spelling, science, social studies and/or vocabulary words in a dictionary or glossary. Classify a group of words by putting them under correct category names. Alphabetize spelling and/or vocabulary words before looking them up in a glossary or dictionary. Interpret graphs, charts, and maps in math, social studies, English, and reading by answering questions correctly. Given several guide words, match words that would be found on the same page. RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Trade books Basal series, Spelling seriei, English series Social Studies series, and Science series Science series Basal series Basal series. Spelling series Math series. Basal series. Social Studies series, English series Basal series STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scores ITarget: Teach students to mastery in areas Outcome: ACTION lthotj NUMBER NUMERATION: Flash numbers to students for identification of either odd or even. Fill in even or i between 2 given Use digit improvement plan of deficit in math in Grade 3. The percentage I of students will increase. responsibility Classroom teacher odd numbers 1 Classroom [ numbers, I cards to make Classroom teacher teacher timeline August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Math series IRC activity Math series staff development Using manipulatives to teach math (base ten blocks) evaluation data AMPT scores AMPT scores numbers up to millions Identify number August 26, 1991 On-going IRC digit  cards. Math series AMPT scores place. in each place. Match word name cards and playing using with number I Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Math series AMPT scores concentration game Use geometric shapes and Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Math series AMPT scores an object to place on. in. or out of the shape upon request by teacher.Target\nOutcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students to mastery in areas of deficit in math in Grade 3. The percentage of students will Increase. ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA RATIONAL NUMBERS: Use visuals and manipula- tives to teach matching of fractions to shaded regions. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series IRC Activites AMPT scores MEASUREMENT: Using individual cardboard clocks, students will show time requested by teacher. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series IRC activiites AMPT scores Use classroom calendar to Identify features of calendar and read dates of special events. Also, use lessons from Math series Involving reading a calendar. Use money manlpulatives to count chang to $1 in classroom store setting. Weigh objects on pound scale to read weight to nearest pound. Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 Math series Bulletin Board Calendar Math series Math series AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: Outcome: IMPROVEMENT PLAN Teach students to mastery in areas of deficit In math in Grade 3. The percentage of students will inrrpasp ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA GEOMETRY: Use manipulatlves of different shapes of different/same sizes to match congruent shapes. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Math series AMPT scores I PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS: Read charts/tables in Math series to answer questions Make own charts and tables using various kinds of Information. Classroom teacher August 26. 1991 On-going Math series AMPT scores ITarget: Outcome: improvement plan The percentage of students will increase that master the AMPT Skills. SCIENCE ACTION 2.1 - Living/Non-Living - Display pictures of Livlng-Non-Livlng - Tour school and park for - Field Trips to Science Museum, Pinnacle Mountain 2.2 - Hereditary - Field trip to a - hospital - students will record data on observable traits of family members. - students will grow different flowers to see what traits are passed on. BODY SYSTEMS Students will make life size systems using butcher paper to display on walls with organs labeled RESPONSIBILITY Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going RESOURCES Teacher, Parents Filmstrips Art specialist Media Specialist Library Animal Breedei Bulletin Board with systems displayed P.E. Teacher show how cardiovasculai system works. STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresimprovement plan Target: The percentage of students will increase that master rhp AMPT Skills- SCIENCE Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA ROCKS -Display rocks in classroom -Field trip to Arkansas Geological Commission Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Speakers from Arkansas Geological Commission AMPT scores t FOOD CHAIN Poster of Predators Make Poster to illustrate the food chain or pyramid of life. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 Art Specialist AMPT scores EARTH CRUST TERMS Students will use world Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 AMPT scores maps to mark areas of volcanoes/earthquakes. Students will trace outline of continents, draw plate boundaries on the continents and compare with each. Art Specialist LibraryTarget: The percentage Outcome: ACTION WEATHER improvement plan of si-iijents will increase that master the AMPT Skillfi. I SCIENCE RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA Field trip to local weather station or airport Students will make simple weather instruments Keep daily weather report Display large map of U.S. - student will place symbols an correct areas Write a weather report predicting the weather for a week. Classroom teacher August 26, On-going On-going Weekly UNIVERSE Field trip to planetarium Use black construction paper to Illustrate galaxies Display universe in classroom. Classroom teacher NATURAL RESOURCES Display pictures and objects of natural resources. Students begin a recycling program. Classroom teacher On-going 1991 Display weather instruments Library Newspaper Weather report Meteorologist Library Film strips Art specialist Newspaper Magazines Filmstrip AMPT scores I AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget: The percentage of students will increase Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY POLLUTION Have learning center with activities for students to do. Visit Pollution Control Center Classroom teacher WATER CYCLE Students will collect rain water in containers and measure the amount evaporated daily. Classroom teacher improvement plan that master the AMPT Skills . SCIENCE TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA Draw/label a completed water cycle. ELECTRON FLOW - CONDUCTORS INSULATORS Set up completed circuit - Use various materials to determine if they are conductors or insulators Reflection/Refractlon Students will use mirrors to observe the reversed image Place metal spoon, finger or other objects in glass of water. Classroom i.teacher August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going August 26, 1991 On-going AMPT scores AMPT scores Art Specialist Electricians Learning Center Visit an Optical Company Learning Center AMPT scores AMPT scores AMPT scoresTarget\nThe percentage of students will increase IMPROVEMENT PLAN that master the AMPT Skills, LANUGAGE ARTS * Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE RESOURCES STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA CAPITALIZATION Students will be given materials that will requir\ncapitalization if sentence i proper nouns. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going AMPT scores I PUNCTUATION Students will be required to write a letter to a friend using correct punctuation. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 On-going Give sample of letter to each student AMPT scores student will make up the 4 kinds of sentences and use correct punctuation. Display the 4 kinds of sentences in classroom. Give student several sentences that require placing a comma or commas. USAGE Student will use cassette recorder to record every day speech and find all errors of subject, verb agreement, sentence fragament, run-ons and double negatives. Classroom teacher August 26, 1991 All staff members Textbooks AMPT scores ITarget\nThe percentage of students will Increase Outcome: ACTION RESPONSIBILITY Students will list the names Classroom teacher of all nouns In classroom. Make Into sentences, adding verbs, pronouns and adjectives. COMPOSITION Students will write In journals. Write a report on career choice. Write a report on any subject' of Interest. Classroom teacher IMPROVEMENT PLAN that master the AMPT Skills. LANUGAGE ARTS TIMELINE August 26, 1991 On-golng August 26, 1991 On-golng ' RESOURCES All staff Textbooks Library Library Teachers STAFF DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION DATA AMPT scores AMPT scores ISTEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL Wellness Is A Habit Were Forming Calendar 1992 TIPS FOR MONTHS TO COME JANUARY DRUGS ARE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH FEBRUARY PROPER DIET IS A SMART DECISION MARCH PROPER EXERCISE GIVES A POSITIVE EDGE APRIL WEIGHT AND CONTROL HAS ITS ADVANTAGES s M T 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 31 S 4 11 18 25 S M T W T F 29 16 23 3 10 17 24 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 S 18 15 22 29 S 18 15 22 29 M 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 31 W 4 11 18 25 T 5 12 19 26 F 6 13 20 27 S 7 14 21 28 S M T 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 S 4 11 18 25 MAY WELLNESS AWARENESS MONTH JUNE GOOD HYGIENE IS NECESSARY JULY ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES AUGUST HEALTHY BODIES MAKE HEALTHY MINDS S M T W T 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 F 18 15 22 29 S 29 16 23 30 S 7 14 21 28 M 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 W 3 10 17 24 T 4 11 18 25 F 5 12 19 26 S 6 13 20 27 s M T S 6 13 20 27 SEPTEMBER CLEAN BODIES SAVES FRIENDS M 7 14 21 28 T 1 8 15 22 29 W 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 F 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26 S 4 11 18 25 FOUR FOOD GROUPS OCTOBER HEALTHY HABITS PROMOTE LONG LIFE M T W 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 W 18 15 22 29 T 29 16 23 30 F 3 10 17 24 31 NOVEMBER PROPER REST ENSURES YOUR BEST 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 T 18 15 22 29 F 29 16 23 30 S 3 10 17 24 31 S 18 15 22 29 M 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 W 4 11 18 25 T 5 12 19 26 F 6 13 20 27 Fruits \u0026amp; Vegetables Milk \u0026amp; Milk Products Meat \u0026amp; Poultry Grains, Bread \u0026amp; Cereal Regular  Ups S 4 11 18 25 S 7 14 21 28 s M T W T F 29 16 23 30 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 S 18 15 22 29 DECEMBER AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION. BETTER THAN A POUND OF CURE s M 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 T 18 15 22 29 W 29 16 23 30 T 3 10 17 24 31 F 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26 /Ars. Curry. School Nurse Regular exercise s Watch Your Step - Stay Healthy l\\eep All Appelntments   ii iWJ SEP 1 5 1592 O!fice cl Dsssgrssstcn Moretoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ay., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING the SfP  8 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of filing of attached \"Stephens Elementary School Strategic Plan\" as required by this Court's order of June 5, 1992. LRSD proposes to include the costs of this plan in its desegregation budget. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hi Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this Sth day of September, 1992\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Place Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STRATEGIC PLAN The new Stephens Elementary School is to be a coordinated effort on the part Kindergarten corridor to facilitate of the Little Rock through 6th. grade School District to build a pre- Listed herein order of 5 June 199E. 1mp1emen tat 1on elementary school i n the 1-630 of the Desegregation Plan. are the major considerations requested in the court Phase schedule: There are numerous steps in the construction process of key events and estimated a facility. Identified planning and herein are only completion dates based on fiscal year. EVENT COMPLETION Draft Educational specifications complete, mittee appointed. site \u0026amp; planning com- Public meeting. 30 Oct.'9S Sites analyzed and selected. Public meeting. 31 Jan. 93 Architect/Engineer selected. 31 Jan. '93 Educational specifications complete Public comment/reviews complete 31 Mar. '93 Preliminary drawings completed \u0026amp; reviewed. Public meeting. 1 May. '93 Land acquisition completed. 30 Jun. '93 City Permits \u0026amp; zoning considerations completed. 30 Jun. '93 Final drawings \u0026amp; specifications completed. 30 Sep. '93 Faculty recruiting begins. 1 Mar. ' 94 Construction completed. 15 Jul. '94 Occupancy completed. 15 Aug. '94 Faculty Assigned E5 Aug. '941 . A strategic plan for communi ty neighborhood meetings with the area of a 2 involvement that includes community members living in the surrounding the current Stephens Incentive School, formation biracial i nVO 1vement of citizens paren ts recruitment to the new school. site whose adv i sory ch i1dren commi ttee, are and targeted the for Community Involvement\nfour (4) priorities\nCommunity involvement will include Neighborhood Meetings\nA neighborhood Meeting was held in early 1992 and meetings will continue throughout the process to ascertain the general feelings des ires, meet i ngs Office, d iscuss with regard to the will be at critical such issues conducted points as the new by in site of the public, and Stephens School. their Public the Student Assignments the planning selection, the process to program and the general design of the school. academic Site Advisory Committee\nSite selection for the new Stephens Elementary School will be assisted by a bi-racial site committee, drawn Distr ict Comm i ttee Administration. will together by the Little Rock Schoo 1 consist It of 1 s members anticipated that the of the L.R.S.D. Administration, Pulaski County School Administration, City Planning Officials, parents, local community experts, Joshua 1nterveners, Knight interveners and technical experts necessary. It will be the responsibility of this committee if to es tab 11sh a time schedule for the completion of site selection in accordance with the master schedule. the Educatior specification commi ttee\nThe educat ion specifications for the new elementary school will be drafted by a committee Curriculum consist of Chaired by the Associate and Learning I mprovemen t. Superintendent for The will teachers, parents and education be responsible for general academic program. soliciting input and committee will specialists who drafting the Parental Involvement\nearly 1992 with a neighborhood General parental involvement began in LRSD school board meeting. meeting and a visit In August 1992 to the the first survey was conducted to assist in determining the theme of the school. Involvement surveys conducted to will continue through new des 1 red selection and any academic program at gather information with regard the new Stephens i nVO 1vemen t other areas where parental will also be is desired invited to in the be members population to the planning process. Schoo 1 , site or community Parents of the site advisory committee and the educational specifications committee.J 2. The schoo1 ' s assigned from total capacity, the number of students to be recruited, LRSD schools. the number of PC55D students to be and the number of early childhood classes anticipated with the ages of the students to be served. Student Distribution: A) Total capacity: 692 Students B) LRSD Students\n415 C) PCSSD Students\n277 D) Early Childhood Classes\n2 E) Student ages\n4 yrs. old through 13 yrs. old The racial balance of the new school will be in accordance with the parameters established in the desegregation plan. 3. A changes and the comprehensive description of schoo 1 and/or capacities. effect these changes will have projected attendance zone on the incentive area schoo 1 enrolIment, racial ba1ance, and The District currently owns three properties that have potential as sites for a new or expanded school. Projected attendance zone of current Stephens Site\nThe schoo1, projected attendance zone Tor if located at the Stephens would consist of the following present site of ISth zone blocks: elementary and Maple, 0572 0573 0574 0583 0441 0571 0575 Zone within bloc ks 0441, the Stephens 0573, 0572, 0583, attendance zone. 0574, are 0575, are within the Franklin attendance Zone blocks zone. currently 0571 , Approximately 245 students currently reside in the first five zone encompass Street, 15th blocks a very 1isted above. These zone smal 1 area Street, Woodrow, generally and 20th School is one block from Pine Street, bounded Street. by bloc ks Pine Stephens three blocks from 15th street, eight blocks Street. An additional 105 from Woodrow, 0571, and 0575. Zone blocks 0571 students reside and two blocks from 20th in zone blocks side of Pine Street (one and 0575 begin on the west blocks 0571 and 0575 block from Stephens School). Zone are currently within the FranklinAttendance toward the zone. The remaining reduction of 65 seats will surround ing it be dedicated incentive enrollment, reducing satellite zones where possible and promoting district wide recruitment. schoo1 Incentive school impact\nThe reassignment of attendance zones from Franklin to Stephens elementary will allow the district to assign students presently being bussed west from these zones due to lack of capacity at Franklin to return to their neighborhood 1 ncen t i ve schools schoo 1. will be The 65 pr imar ily seats for iden t i fi ed for disparity in the incentive schools. reducing racial Area school impact\nand enrollment of The subsequent impact on racial balance the districts western area schools expec ted to be minimal, as the Franklin will be coming from students returning 1 s to will be affected to any great extent. many schools and no one school Projected attendance zone of current Lee site\nThe 12th and projected attendance zone Pine, IS identical for Stephens, if located at to that identified for the present Stephens school site. 0572 0573 057^ 0583 0441 0571 0575 Zone within blocks 0441, the Stephens 0573, 0572, 0583, 0574, are attendance zone. 0575, are within the Franklin attendance Zone blocks zone. curren 11y 0571 , The distribution of students will be identical to that described above for the old Stephens site. Incen t i ve schoo1 identical if the new impact\nDue to attendance zones school IS located being at this site, the impact on the surrounding incentive schools will be the same as described above for the Stephens school site. Area school impact\nSince the attendance zones are identical for this site, the subsequent area school impact will be the same as for the Stephens site. Projected attendance zone of King/Oakhurst Site\nThe present King/Oakhurst site is new elementary school. However, at a possible location present all for the children from this area are being sent to many schools both in the immediate vicinity and west for racial balancing and due to lack of local capacity. There are two options for populating a school at attendance the King/Oakhurst site: zone surround ing the creation schoo 1 of site transportation of students from the present Stephens a new or zone.The If this site is chosen and a new 5 attendance zone is created surrounding this site, a much more in-depth analysis will be required. If a school at the populated with students King/Oakhurst were will be students from necessary to one from the present Stephens transport predominately, black a large number to zone, be i t of black attendance zone to another predominately black attendance zone. This would have a negative impact on our desegregation plan by increasing,rather than decreasing, the burden of busing on black students than if a new attendance zone is created. Incentive school impact\nIf the King/Oakhurst site is chosen a major p1 ace. realignment of ail \u0026lt;St this time this surround i ng zones must take until a final site is selected. affect can not be fully realized Area school schoo1 impact\nA major realignment of the incentive zones and the possible shifting of satellite zones will obviously have an impact on the districts area schools. Until a final site is selected and the zones area school impact can not be fully analyzed redrawn, the above three locations are location of the new school. strong possibilities for the IS determined. and i t above, the fully assessed. impact on is possible that the incentive and However, until the final location i t may not be area schools one the cannot be A. A description of all anticipated costs, including site purchase. site preparation, design fees, construction, equipment/ furnishinqs, materlals, complete budget of personnel, etc. must be start-up and main tenance included in expenses. a The portion of the costs to be funded by desegregation funds is to be clearly indicated in the budget. Antic 1pated costs\nListed herein are the estimated costs for the Stephens school. (Costs are very preliminary estimates expressed in FY 92 dollars. based on averaged anticipated costs in the FY 92 budget and subject to final decisions on location, educational specifications, constraints ). construction method, size and budget Start-up costs\nexpenses: Start-up costs include the following one time Site purchase\nEstimated cost for the purchase improved property: $37,000 (per 50' x 150' lot). of6 Site preparation\nEstimated cost for of the preparation site. the existing school district property: $160,000 per Design fees: Estimated cost of design: $315,000. Construction: $3,500,000. Estimated cost of construction: Equipment/furnishings: Est i mated cost of schoo1 eguipment and furnishings: $^51,000. Mater ials: Estimated cost of materials/books: $641,000. Pont i ngency: $450,000. Estimated cos t of con t i ngency funds: Maintenance costs: Estimated costs to identified areas for FY 94. operate the below No te: Personnel: Estimated personnel costs: $1,593,700. Total personnel cost is funded as follows: Operating budget\n$1,449,800. Desegregation budget\n$144,000. Ma in tenance $215,000. cost: Estimated physical support cost: (All non-desegregation costs are funded improvement or operating budget.) by the capital 5. Contingency plans for students while construction rebui11 on the current site. accommodating the current takes place, if the school Stephens is to be a comprehensive re-use plan If the school is located elsewhere, with the community. should be developed in conjunction Student contingency plan: The current studen ts of Elementary school will be accommodated in the following Stephens manner. Stephens school site: Should the new Stephens school be built on the site of will be moved the present school, all students the construction period. to the Oakhurst/King school site during6. 7 Re-use plan\nIf the new Stephens school is not located on the present Stephens site, the disposition of the old school will be coordinated with the local community after the final site is selected. advisory committee, with the developing building. local any public meetings will neighborhood ideas they may Description of the process that purchase a site, if applicable. description should include coni nq Through the to have site be conducted assist for them 1 n the school will be used to select and If a new site is selected. steps required to obtain the any special consideration required, status of options to purchase the property, and information regarding the neighborhood support an interdistrict school. for Site Selection process\nIt will be recommended that the new Stephens In terdistrict Elementary School be constructed in one of three school locations: site, present Stephens present King/Oakhurst schoo1 schoo1 site, site. cons 1 de'^a11 on will be given to will be made using a three step process: other sites. The final present Lee However, selection 1 \u0026gt; Selection Criteria\nof the Site Advisory It will be the responsibility Committee to draw 2) 3) Site Purchase establish, and list in priori ty together, sequence all criteria with regard to selecting the school site. Visiting \u0026amp; Evaluating Sites\nThe Committee will be responsible for evaluating cr i ter ia. those Recommendat ions: visiting proposed sites against The recommendations based evaluations to the the sites, and estab 1i shed Commi ttee on its site Little will propose visits and its Rock School District Administration as outlined in the master schedule. process\nThe purchase of additional land necessary once the final site has been selected. If may be necessary to purchase additional land to construct school, 1 and condemnation . acquis i tion If city or will be state land through direct- leasing will be considered. is immediately it becomes the Stephens purchase or adjacent. Stephens school site\nproperty may from be acguired If this site is or leased from selected, additional private landowners. This will the city depend on or purchased program of the new school and the anticipated design. the needs and8 Zoning\nZoning is not a consideration at this a school presently exists. site, as will Lee school have to site\nIf this be acquired. site is selected This acquisition additional land direct purchase or condemnation if necessary. will be through a school Zon ing\nZoning is not a presently exists. consideration at this site, as K1 nq/Dakhurst site\nmay be available through a If this site is selected additional land joint use agreement with the city of Little Rock, leasing action with the city or direct purchase from private landowners. Zon1 ng\nZoning is not a a school presently exists. consideration at this site. as Neighborhood support\nheld in early support for 1992, a new site. At a 11 was public meeting with local Citi zens indicated that there interdistrict school At this point in time we do not from the remaining local population. is much local at the Stephens school know the level of support But this will be determined through the process outlined under Community Involvement. 7. Summary of procedures for the design and construction the selection of an process including preliminary designs. arch i tectural design input from citizens. teachers, firm, and parents, design completion with adherence to federal requirements and ADE recommendations regarding new school construction, and a description of the construction schedule. Des 1qn \u0026amp; Construction\nDesign Stephens School will be as follows\nand construction for the new A/E Selection\nArchitectural engineering firms will be solicited via public announcement, screened against an LRSD cr i ter ia by a Plant Services Directorate screening board and an award made. and Purchasing Preliminary Designs\nPreliminary designs will be a part of the design process and administration for periodic review. submi tted to the Design Input\nDesign input will be coordinated with the the educational additionally spec ifications be secured commi ttee. from interested parents during neighborhood meetings. It will citizens and9 8. An Design Completion: Designs will and state review process to follow the normal city insure adherence federal, state and local laws and ordinances. Construction schedule: It 1 s construction schedule submitted by anticipated that be a bar chart ind i cat mg to the the Contractor will significant construe t i on activities against which progress will be measured. administrative, projections for outline of staff recruitment procedures for the school's the outlined teaching and each grade level recruitment and hiring in the description of plans support staff, including and all support programs. staff If Professional practices planned differ from those the LRCTA must be included. to negotiate the hiring Negotiations Agreement, a modifications with Staff recruitment procedures: Staff recruitment and selection procedures currently used by the Little Rock School District for other schools will be used to staff this school so as to accordance with achieve a racially balanced faculty in district. fo 1 lowed positions vacancies based on posi tion. the faculty racial balance of the schoo1 The Professional Negotiations Agreement will be in all regards including using applicable will be filled the job the filling of vacan t Staff transfer provisions. by the most Remaining description and projections: The level with Arkansas Department con trac tua1 agreements, Directors' policies. qualified applicants qualifications for of staffing each will conform of Education standards, negotiated and any applicable Board of' STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATE, PLACE, AND PURPOSE FOR MEETING DATE\nWEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1992 4:00 5:00 P.M. 810 WEST MARKHAM PURPOSE: TO REVIEW THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE\nTO PLAN FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992 3:30 4:30 P.M. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN PURPOSE\nTO FINALIZED PLANS FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO REVIEW SITE APPRAISAL FORM DATE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1993 9:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. PURPOSE: TO CONDUCT A BUS TOUR OF THE FIVE PROPOSED SITES TO PROPOSE SITE RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING TOUR DATE: FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1993 10:00 11:00 A.M. 810 WEST MARKHAM PURPOSE: TO RECOMMEND STEPHENS SITE TO DR. BERND TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD\nTO SHARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERSDATES STEPHENS SITE SELECTION COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1. NOVEMBER 18, 1992 STEPHENS SCHOOL 2. DECEMBER 15, 1993 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH REV, WALKER, PASTOR 3. JANUARY 14, 1993 ROBINSON ELEMENTARY PCSSD \u0026gt; 4. JANUARY 26, 1993 PINE FOREST ELEMENTARY PCSSD 5. FEBRUARY 26, 1993 SYLVAN HILLS ELEMENTARY PCSSDLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEARNING EQUITY 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 To: Chris Heller, Attorney From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Subject\nSupport Data for Stephens Interdistrict Site Selection The information to support the Stephens site below and enclosed, call. selection is listed If you need,  additional information, please 1. Abstract: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection 2. Agenda for Stephens Site Selection Community Meetings 3. Unedited comments from patrons and parents 4. Stephens Interdistrict Survey 5. A list of signatures from the Stephens Community 6. A letter from Foster Strong, President of the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation, Inc, (GLRCDC), with a Special Report, Cooperative Community Revitalization Plan A letter from the Pulaski County Special School District A support letter from Jim Dailey, Little Rock Mayor Two special reports with recommendation: Bernd and the Board of Directors. submitted Chris, I have included a packet for your file if you need it. not please return and I will file here. If 7 . 8 . 9 . o Dr. Enc.STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE SELECTION ABSTRACT The Stephens Elementary School Strategic Plan was submitted to the Court in September 1992. A committee was formed to establish a timeline, search criteria, conduct and attend community forums, participate in site visits, and to develop written recommenda- In accordance with the Strategic Plan, Site Selection tions. Committee participants included: representatives from Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts including the LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee\nparents and comnunity experts\nJoshua and Knight Intervenors\nCTA representatives\nand technical experts from the City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. This committee conducted throe (3) meetings for organization and formation of recommendations\nfive (5) community meetings\nan interest survey for Pulaski County School District aund LRSD\nand a bus tour to review the five (5) sites. A total of sixty-one (61) individuals participated in community involvement phase of Coimnunity based groups such as ACORN and The this process. Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation played an  Both groups were integral part to the decision making process. represented in the attendance at the Community meeting, with an ACORN representative serving on the Site Selection Committee. Both groups submitted written documents which were utilized during our consultation. A Special Report, written by Douglas Eaton, was submitted to Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd on Februairy 25, 1993, with recommendations from the Site Selection Committee. The findings, after accumulating all data, evaluating concerns of patrons and experts, and review of site observations was that the present site, 3700 W. 18th, be proposed as the final site for Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. Several major concerns exist as to the success of the proposed site: (1) the perception that inner city is not safe, (2) filling of Pulaski County seats to maintain critical desegre- gation balance\nand (3) present lack of a program, focus. It is believed that these factors can be eliminated through a vigorous recruitment effort for white students\nand because this site has historical significance within the African American community. The representatives of the community based groups have previously voiced their approval of this ite and should be called on to help the District in its search for success of this venture. In addition, the City of Little Rock, in a letter dated February 24, from Mayor Jim Dailey, has pledged its support in as much as the neighborhood is a part of the City's current Block Grant renovation program.t ( Little Rock School District DATE: December 1$, 1992 TO: Stephens Site Selection Committee Members FROM\nMarie A. Parker, Associate Superintendent - Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT: Site Selection Criteria/Materials \" Enclosed are the site^ appraisal ''criteria \"and other materials . ... thatwore discussed by Doug. Eaton at .the December 14 meeting. Please use these forms to give your assessment of the sites. If you are not comfortable visiting these sites alone and would like for someone to visit with you, please call Doug Eaton 570-4020 Marie Parker 324-2271. or There are five (5) proposed sites listed on the enclosed sheets. If there are other sites you feel should be included on this list please call Doug Eaton. k 810 West Markham Street Little Rock Arkansas 72201 (501)374 3561  f SITE LOCATION DATA SHEET 1. The general location of the new Stephens school is to be the I 630 corridor. Generally bounded on the north by I 630\nsouth by city limits\neast by I 30 and west by University Ave. a. The attendance currently being assigned Stephens will be by LRSD students\nattendance zones Elementary School, and PCSSD students: Elementary School and Franklin (Consideration may be given Garland students), attendance to be assigned by PCSSD. 3. Properties which may be considered\n1 . 3700 West 18th (Stephen?,. school, si te ) a. Vacant property a blocks east of University S of I 630 3. 4800 West a7th (Oakhurst/King school site) 4. 3805 West lath (Lee school site) 5. Vacant property south of Horace Mann JH, east of I 30t- f 1 jfc K I ( I Qxqnn m i TTt ( CONSIDERATIONS OF SCHOOL LOCATIONS\n1) Review and Determination of District Organisation Pattern\na) Pattern of development (district) determine service area. 2) Comparison to Land Use Study a) Development of'trends\n\\:population, growth, facilities 3) Enrollment Estimates\\Placement 4) Grade Grouping Patterns a) determine grades to attend\\population\\busing * 5) Determination of Formal School Faci1itiesXExtended Community Service and Implications on Site. 6) Selection of General Land Area for Sites: a) Land use determines natural\\logical community area. b) Population determines number of studentsXages. c ) Grade grouping and.other that formal school services I determines general characteristics of site d) Tie to community 7) Selection of Specific Site: a) No set land formula...use criteria\\program. b) Don't \"back into c) Considerations: II program from site. (1) Location of building(s) (S) Number of stories (3) Set backs (4) Space around buildings (5) Architectural design (6 ) Orientation-sight-sound-climate (7) Integrated building-landscape plan (S) Parking (9) Safety (10) Utilities (11) Site development (12) Accessibility (13.\u0026gt; Traff icibi lity (14) Location (zoning) (15) Physical conditions 8) Miscellaneous Considerations: a) R, choo1\\community relations b) Site determinant school program Attractiveness of site d) Acquisition of property e) Cost f) Resistance to chapging siteXnew site g) Expansion of ma 1! s i tes is nonexistent SITE APPRAISAL STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE \\ 1. SITE LOCATION\n(Ad-dress ) 2. ADJACENT STREETS\n(North) (South) (East) (West) CURRENT USE: (1 ) Vacant, (2 ) Commerc ial, (3) Residential, (4) Pub lie Note\nIf 2, 3 or 4\nWhat is presently on property? 5. MAIN ACCESS TO SITE PROM INTERSTATE OR MAJOR THOROU(3HFARE\nThoroughfare: Directions to site: 6. SURROUNDING PROPERTY: (Within 5 blocks each direction) (Nor th)T ype: Cond i 11 on : (South )Type: Cond i t ion: (East)T ype: Condition: 1(West)Type: Cond i tion:_ GENERAL CRITERIA ELEMENT RATING/POINTS 1. Will the school have to be multistory? YES (0) NO (1) 2. Are utilities readily available? YES (1) NO (0) 3. Are there zoning restrictions? YES (0) NO \u0026lt;1) 5. 6. Are there architectural considerations? Is the site serviced by public transportation? Is the site readily available? YES \u0026lt;0) NO (1) YES (1) NO (0) YES (1) NO (0) 7. Will additional property have to be purchased? YES (0) NO (1 ) 8. Will the site allow for future expansion? YES (1 ) NO (0) 9. Will extensive relocation be necessary? YES (0)N0 (1) 10. Is the site attractive? YES (1) NO (0) TOTAL POINTS\n(10 Points Max) COMMENTS:__ c(Note: Criteria are 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6, SITE EVALUATION in priority sequence) SITE CRITERIA SUPPORT PROGRAM (SUFFICIENT SIZE) (Consider if the site is large enough RATING/POINTS POOR \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;GOOD 1 2 3 A 5 to support the educational program to include sufficient space for recreational activities and parking or will have to be purchased?) SITE CONDITIONS (Cons i der additional land i 2 3 A 5 the physical aspects of the site, flatness, vegetation. soil conditions) drainage, CONSTRUCTION RE{3UIREMENTS (Consider 1 2 3 A 5 0 if any significant construction requirements will have to be met in order to build on the site,ie\ndrainage features, access routes ) sound barriers. retaining walls. spec i a 1 fences, SITE ACCESSIBILITY\\TRAFFICIBILITY (Can the site be accessed easily and by bus/auto) SITE SAFETY (Consider the area around the school present to children and participants. schoo 1 and areas accessibi1i ty by vech1c1es ) . RECRUITMENT (Consider the attendance, zone (s ) ) 1 e, 1 2 3 A 5 safely both walking and 1 2 3 A 5 and the dangers it may look at routes to the and buildings along these routes, evaluate police, fire department and other emergency 1 2 3 A 5 impact of the site on recruitment and accessibility from outside attendance( 7 . EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 5 2 1 3 (Consider program) if the site will determine the educational 8. RELATION TO EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 3 5 2 1 9. (Consider proximity to 1ibrar ies, educat ion community center SITE ENVIRONMENT support facilities le: and organ1zat1ons, par ks ) 1 2 3 4 5 (Consider the school and how surrounding neighborhood) it will complement the 10. ZONING 1 2 3 4 5 (Consider the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood, conducive to enhance the school site) learning environment will its development 11. COMMUNITY SHARING 5 3 4 2 1 (Consider if the site lends itself to community activities beyond educational) 12. ENHANCE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 5 3 2 1 4 (Consider if the school will foster community involvement by virtue of its being there) TOTAL POINTS:(60 Points Max) 7. GENERAL COMMENTS ON SITE: 51 gnature (Evalua tor) (Date) \u0026lt;4COMBINED FORMS (Pulaski County. LRSD and Blue Forms-LRSD) November 1992 STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL INTEREST SURVEY THEME RANK ORDER OF CHOICE COMMUNITY OF LEARNING: 5] 1 3 5 [ [ ( 2 ( 6 J 7] [ 11 ] 6 J ACCELERATED LEARNING: 13] 1 3 5 4 [ [ [ 2 [ 6 ] 14] [ 14 ] 1 ] 4 SCHOOL-WIDE ENRICHMENT: 12] [23 LANGUAGE EXPRESSION: 8] [2 2] 15 1 3 5 1 3 [ [ [ [ ] 2 4 2 [ 5 ] ] ] [ ] OTHER: 13 (6) Creativity in Learning (5) Communications (3) Basic Science, Math \u0026amp; Skills (1) Music and Art Appreciation (Band, Art \u0026amp; Dance) [11 5 [ 2 ] 4 ]t' Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664-0334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, L - Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection CommitteeI I 1 I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I f  i COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN I CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) 1 i COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN I ! 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE f ( Introduction................................................................. Building Community Capacity..........................- The GLRCDC .............................................vVt \u0026lt; Management Structure.......................................... Staffing.......................................................................... Financial Resources .................................................. Geographical Area Served................................... Housing .......................................................................... Initial Target Area.................................................... Community Obstacles to Overcome.............. Actions to Overcome Obstacles ..................... Coalition Building ................................................... Network Members ................................................ Network Objectives............................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary.................................................................... I APPENDIX Census Tract Map .................................. Midtown Service Area Map ............... Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile................. 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I! BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY I I I 1 I I Few Individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A.cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Commursty Cooperative Network is the Identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable arxl respected irxlividual or organization to Inform and organize organizations and irkHviduais about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and Interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Qt the prospective network members to talk 1 in a I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information i- - way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 21 I * Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHling and able to allocate to the network. I -.'T  I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through'network participation. For community groups, Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. I I ! The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3J ! THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I i The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: -To purchase deteriorating residential/nooresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. 1 To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. I To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. I  To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4t I BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! I Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I i The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irxiividuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective\"network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: f * Get the prospective network members to talk I Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2I i To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is In place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The - manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined and  controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience In the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 I'- Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 51 I Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. I Staffing 1 The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. I. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE I The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). -- - . - \\ The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. i Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. I I Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. f Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. r I There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should be identified as priorities for any home improvement programs that are initiated In the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading In these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through Improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA I\nI I The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are: gang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n I 1  Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles 1 The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must provg that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9I 1 Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial Institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The Individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. I I I Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. I Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities: Community Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nI Develop safe, decent and affordable housing. I Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I I I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #2 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 #3 #4 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning 1993-1994 1993-1994 #5 GLRCDC 1993-1995 12I ( I I Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, ho\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1303","title":"Parent Committee: Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1989"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Parent Committee: Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1303"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["200 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_966","title":"Reports: Enrollment, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Enrollment, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/966"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["136 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_765","title":"Test data, standardized results","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Test data, standardized results"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/765"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSCHOOL: Cloverdale Junior High Iges 1989 READING 2.90. 1991 1992 1990 MATHEMATICS 1969 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 I Number Tested Number Passed 202 183 201 181 212 182 222 186 218 186 202 168 201 177 212 181 Percent Passed 91 90 86 84 85 83 88 85 BLACK MALES Number Passed ,44 44 54 51 58 43 43 51 Percent Passed 81 81 81 77 83 80 80 76 Number Passed 56 61 59 70 78 48 60 61 Percent Passed Number Passed rcent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 89 87 81 8C 81 76 86 84 32 35 31 15 21 30 34 31 97 49 98 2 IOC 97 36 100 5 100 94 35 100 3 75 95 40 93 6 100 100 26 93 3 100 91 45 90 2 100 94 94 35 35 97 5 100 100 3 75 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICr ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUm4ARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 222 180 218 188 1988 202 166 languz^ge arts 1989 1990 1991 1992 SCIENCE .1920 91 1992 1986 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 4990 19 91 .112. ** PASSING 8CORE=4204 88 90 199011991 1992, 81 52 79 69 79 19 95 34 79 6 100 Total for all students in the Other' race category, were not reported by gender. 86 58 83 82 85 20 95 25 89 3 100 82 40 74 50 79 29 88 45 90 2 100 201 164 212 156 222 218 172 192 202 121 201 135 212 150 222 135 218 139 202 127 201 124 212 135 222 118 218 156 206 178 207 181 213 191 219 193 219 198 82 36 67 57 81 32 89 35 97 4 80 These scores 74 38 57 57 78 26 79 33 94 2 50 77 44 67 69 79 16 80 39 91 4 67 88 56 80 84 88 21 100 28 100 3 100 60 27 50 31 49 25 76 37 74 1 .50 67 71 61 64 63 62 64 53 72 86 87 90 88 90 33 43 38 49 31 24 36 31 50 61 38 54 32 89 27 75 5 100 64 58 70 57 44 54 47 71 46 63 29 88 30 86 2 50 42 48 18 90 34 79 3 50 46 48 20: 95 22 79 2 67 32 37 43 42 62 51 53 59 48 65 26 33 28 16 19 79 92 85 80 90 36 72 2 100 25 69 5 100 26 74 2 50 25 58 4 67 23 82 2 67 The PASSING SCORE information for 1980-1992 is based on three administrations of the HPT. ' A '1SCHOOL: Dunbar Junior High 1986 1969 READING 1-9 9 0 1991 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 202 167 219 174 169 124 152 126 242 216 202 169 219 175 169 116 152 114 Percent Passed Number Passed BLACK rgMALE? Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed as 71 S3 89 84 80 69 75 51 laa 59 80 28 88 26 93 3 75 63 72 75 80 13 100 22 100 1 50 40 63 57 76 12 92 15 94 0 41 79 42 82 21 84 22 92 0 49 75 65 90 55 98 42 95 5 100 52 81 63 85 26 81 25 89 3 75 66 75 76 81 13 100 20 91 0 42 33 66 63 50 38 67 10 77 13 81 1 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 J 992. 242 215 89 54 83 59 1988 202 142 70 36 56 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 1991 1992 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 1980 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1992  PASSING BCORE=4204 75 82 19 76 24 100 0 * Total for all students in the Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. 55 98 42 95 5 100 60 81 22 69 23 82 1 25 219 148 169 120 152 117 242 210 202 106 219 105 169 94 152 76 242 160 202 116 219 128 169 101 152 85 242 168 1 1988 195 170 lie? 1990 Alli 1992 68 49 56 65 69 13 100 20 91 1 50 These scores 71 77 87 52 48 56 50 66 57 58 60 56 69 87 37 58 58 77 10 77 14 88 1 100 34 65 41 80 18 72 24 100 0 51 78 64 89 49 88 42 95 4 80 27 42 33 45 23 72 22 79 1 25 41 47 35 37 11 85 17 77 1 50 36 56 34 45 11 85 12 75 1 100 18 35 23 45 21 84 14 58 0 32 49 35 49 50 89 39 89 4 80 34 53 39 53 23 72 19 68 1 25 45 31 28 38 51 54 57 12 92 16 73 1 50 48 42 56 11 85 16 100 1 100 54 26 51 18 72 13 54 0 58 38 53 48 86 40 91 4 80 222 175 170 126 152 136 242 222 79 74 89 92 The PASSING SCORE information for 1988-1992 is based on tlirea administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Forest Heights Junior High 1968 1989 READING 1990 1112, 1966 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 AUX REVISED AUGUST 1992 ftlL STVPEHT? Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 259 244 94 222 204 92 258 239 93 218 188 86 225 169 75 259 242 93 222 206 93 258 237 92 218 193 _5a BLACK MALES Number Passed 61 59 68 55 49 58 60 67 54 Percent passed 86 82 53. M 56. 55. 51 BIAgK FEHAI.S? Number Passed 81 58 78 65 57 82 58 79 71 Percent Passed 55 55 51 25 76 96 55 55 52 WHITE MALES, Number Passed 42 49 43 35 27 42 49 43 35 Percent Passed 55 100 100 52 90 58. 105 105 52 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 57 31 42 29 28 56 38 40 29 Percent Passed 98 97 100 100 100 97 100 95 100 OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed 3 1 8 4 8 4 1 8 4 Percent passed 75 50 100 100 89 100 50 100 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 225 179 80 58 in 61 81 26 52 26 93 8 89 1986 259 234 90 55 50. 75 55 42 58 58 100 4 100 lANGUAGB ARTS 1969 222 192 86 49 _2Q 57 __2Q 46 51 38 100 2 100 These scores 1990 258 229 89 218 177 _1L. 1992 225 152 68 1988 259 207 _S0 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 .1952 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1969 1990 1991 1992 Igas PASSING 8COnE=4204 Am. 90 im .19 9 2 60 45 44 51 If, 79 55 41 55 41 98 8 100 66 50 33 55 29 100 4 100 5 8 50 52 22 21 28 100 8 89 60 21 42 58 52 90 2 50 222 184 -51 258 213 _5i 218 154 -Zl 225 140 62 259 204 _2S 222 191 -55 258 208 218 172 225 134 -60 262 254 _95 226 214 _as. 261 244 93 219 197 _9Q_ 218 181 83 53 If, 46 .25 49 100 35 92 1 50 55 in 68 25 42 58 40 95 8 100 42 88 47 52 34 51 27 93 4 100 4 1 55 40 51 25 83 27 96 7 78 47 55 55 50 40 5 25 25 15 58 5 42 58 55 95 2 50 48 66 56 38 2__Z2 58. 51 49 40 34 100 55 54 26 87 37 97 2 100 39 28 23 93 8 100 97 4 100 55 7 78 u The PASSING SCORE infoniiation for 1980-1992 is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH 19 89 READING 1990 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989\n??o 199 1 REVISED AUGUST 1992 Number Tested Number Passed 297 282 285 265 290 261 288 242 Percent Passed Number Passed Ptrcent Paaaea BIJVCK FEMALES Humber Passed Percent Passed WUTE MALE? Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Humber Passed percent Passed Humber Passed tatssBt 95 83 94 79 92 54 98 63 98 3 75 93 68 94 98 90 43 91 42 100 14 93 90 66 80 103 91 47 96 34 100 11 100 84 70 74 101 85 27 96 30 17 14 88 212 174 82 74 79 61 77 12 100 21 100 6 100 297 266 285 266 290 270 288 254 90 75 85 75 87 52 95 61 11 3 75 93 68 94 96 88 46 12 42 111 14 93 93 73 88 104 12 49 111 34 111 10 91 88 79 84 103 87 27 11 31 100 14 88 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 212 183 86 76 81 69 87 11 92 21 111 6 100 1988 297 267 90 71 81 79 92 51 93 62 12 4 100 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 285 259 91 64 89 98 90 45 11 42 111 10 67 These scores 1990 290 240 83 59 71 95 84 42 11 33 12 11 100 288 231 80 63 67 98 82 26 12 31 111 13 81 92 212 160 75 57 61 66 84 11 92 21 100 5 83 1980 297 218 73 58 66 50 58 51 93 57 11 2 50 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 19 9 2 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1991 1992 ** PASSING 6CORE=4204 8 1989 1990 9 . JUi. 285 210 290 205 288 166 74 45 63 73 67 42 89 38 11 12 80 71 52 63 64 57 45 12 33 12 11 100 58 53 56 51 43 24 11 26 14. 12 75 The PASSING SCOPE 212 120 57 54 5.7_ 32 4 1 11 18 _ai 5 83 297 225 285 240 290 245 288 162 76 63 72 55 64 48 12 57 11 2 50 84 62 86 83 76 43 11 40 11 12 80 84 68 82 8 7 77 46 11 34 111 10 91 56 50 53 59 50 19 11. 24 22 10 63 212 141 67 56 60 48 11 92 20 11 6 100 306 290 288 280 303 282 295 263 211 179 95 97 93 89 85 information for 1908-1992 administrations of the MPT. 1 is based on throeSCHOOL: MABRLVALE JUNIOR HIGH 1988 1969 READING 1990 1991 1992 1988 MATHEMATICS 1989 1990 1991 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WIITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed 203 196 174 158 162 153 191 163 97 40 87 54 98 57 100 44 100 1 100 91 38 79 39 87 39 100 41 100 1 100 94 48 91 38 90 39 100 24 100 4 100 85 42 lA 49 82 30 94 36 100 6 100 175 146 83 37 70 51 84 23 92 33 97 2 100 203 177 174 160 162 154 191 163 87 35 76 45 82 54 95 42 95 1 100 92 41 85 40 89 38 97 40 98 1 100 95 50 39 93 37 95 24 100 4 100 85 44 21 47 78 30 94 36 100 6 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 175 154 88 41 77 55 90 24 96 33 97 1 50 LANGUAGE ARTS 1988 203 179 88 35 76 46 84 53 93 44 100 1 100 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 1988 SOCIAL STUDIES -1909 991 1992 r * PASSING BCORE=\u0026lt;204 AWL 199? 1990 1111 1-992 174 150 86 34 7 1 36 80 39 100 40 98 1 100 These scores 162 135 83 39 74 36 86 34 87 23 96 3 75 191 160 84 41 21 48 80 30 94 36 100 5 83 175 128 73 32 60 42 69 22 88 31 21 1 50 203 149 73 27 30 55 51 89 40 91 1 122 174 111 162 119 191 111 64 26 51 18 40 37 95 29 71 1 122 73 35 56. 23 55 36 92 21 88 4 122 58 26 16. 21 35 26 81 34 94 4 The PASSING SCOPE 175 86 49 19 36 25 41 17 68 24 71, 1 50 203 146 72 28 61 30 55 51 2. 36 82 1 122 174 128 74 31 65 23 51 38 27 35 85 1 122 162 126 78 37 70 31 74 33 85 22 92 3 75 191 125 65 31 54 31 52 27 84 32 82 4 67 175 85 49 18 34 25 41 15 60 26 76 1 50ji 207 195 171 160 166 159 193 178 94 91 96 92 175 153 87 information for 1900-1992 administrations of the MPT. is based on threeSCHOOL: MANN MAGNET JUNIOR HIGH l?88 1969 READING 1990 199 986 MATHEMATICS 98 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 232 227 98 269 258 96 278 271 97 282 268 95 272 248 91 232 219 94 269 257 96 278 255 92 282 246 87 BLACK HALES Number Passed Fercent Pnased BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES  Number Passed Percent Passe i Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed Total for a. 6'9 99 62 95 39 98 49 100 8 100 65 89 80 98 48 98 57 100 8 100 64 98 85 96 59 98 60 100 3 75 61 91 81 94 57 95 63 100 6 100 were not reported by gender. 58 83 94 90 37 100 52 100 7 100 64 91 61 94 40 100 46 94 8 100 66 90 79 96 48 98 56 98 8 100 59 55 91 75 84 58 97 59 98 4 100 82 69 80 56 93 61 97 5 83 students in the \"other\" race category. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1906 1969 lAHGUAGE ARTS 1990 1991 1908 1989 SCIENCE 1990 199 1 19 92. 1908 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1992 - ** PASSING 6CORE=:4204 69 90 1991 1922 . 272 247 91 61 87 92 88 36 97 52 100 6 86 232 211 91 60 86 58 89 37 93 48 98 8 100 269 248 92 59 81 76 93 48 98 57 100 8 100 These scores 278 267 96. 58 89 85 96 60 100 60 100 4 100 282 261 93 55 82 81 94 56 93 63 100 6 100 272 252 93 58 83 101 96 36 97 51 98 6 86 232 196 84 58 83 50 77 37 93 43 88 8 100 269 210 78 48 66 55 67 48 98 53 93 6 75 278 235 85 53 82 64 72 59 98 56 93 3 75 282 201 71 272 202 74 232 184 79 269 217 81 278 237 85 282 225 80 272 216 79 233 224 96 270 263 97 282 272 96 284 276 97 27 3 257 94 41 61 43 50 53 88 60 95 4 67 49 70 65 62 35 95 46 88 7 100 50 71 48 74 37 93 41 84 8 100 50 55 49 51 68 62 76 48 98 51 89 6 75 85 66 74 58 97 55 92 3 75 73 60 70 52 87 53 92 6 100 73 75 71 35 95 49 94 6 86 1 i The PASSING SCORE information for 1988-1992 administrations of the MPT. is based on tlireeSCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH 986 1989 READING 90 1988 MATHEMATICS 989 1990 9 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Eaased BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent passed 194 177 91 49 36 44 83 45 100 37 100 2 100 220 198 90 45 80 53 87 48 100 48 96 4 80 217 189 87 223 198 89 223 195 87 194 169 87 220 191 87 217 189 87 223 193 87 49 79 65 83 34 97 35 97 6 100 38 73 56 85 44 98 57 100 3 100 57 86 51 74 33 97 54 100 0 46 81 43 81 45 100 35 92 1 50 41 73 53 87 46 96, 47 94 4 80 49 36 79 65 83 35 100 35 97 5 83 69 53 80 44 5a 57 100 3 100 Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 223 196 88 52 79 58 84 32 94 54 100 0 1986 194 163 84 42 74 42 79 43 96 34 92 2 100 LANGUAGE ARTS 1989 1990 199 1 1992 im 1969 SCIENCE 19 9 0 1991 1992 1988 SOCIAL STUDIES im 19JA 1991 1992 * PASSING 6CORE=\u0026lt;20X 19 68 I 19_.e 990 1991 1992 220 196 89 43 77 53 87 47 98 49 98 4 80 These scores 217 190 88 48 77 69 88 32 91 36 100 5 83 223 187 84 223 174 78 194 116 60 220 144 65 217 167 77 223 158 223 163 34 65 51 77 43 96 56 98 3 100 44 67 46 67 30 88 54 100 0 26 46 20 38 42 93 28 76 0 J 30 41 71 73 194 101 52 220 163 74 217 183 84 223 148 66 223 162 73 196 175 89 223 202 91 219 204 93 223 207 93 228 202 89 29 47 20 35 48 23 4 1 54 21 34 45 54. 44 88 4 80 66 54 69 33 54 35 97 4 67 56 71 35 63 77 44 62 28 42 44 5S 54 95 31 4 5 32 94 53 _98 3 0 15 28 41 51 25 68 0 35 57 46 .36. 43 86 4 61 78 34 .97 35 97 5 32 48 40 55 50 88 3 38 55 32 94 51 94 0 100 The PASSING SCORE administrations of 80 85 100 i information for 1988-1992 the MPT. is based on threeSCHOOL\nSOUn-KJEST JUNIOR HIGH READING 98 8 9 92 8 198 MATHEMATICS 90 19 REVISED AUGUST 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 222 203 209 185 170 143 209 186 205 163 222 199 209 176 170 134 209 161 Percent Passed 91 89 84 89 80 54 21 22 BUCK HALES Number Passed Percent Passed BUCK FEHALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS 68 86 65 90 22 96 47 100 Number Passed 1 Percent Passed 100 63 81 70 91 28 93 22 100 2 100 60 85 52 81 16 94 13 93 2 50 67 86 73 90 18 95 22 100 6 67 51 72 59 77 28 90 20 95 5 100 66 84 65 90 22 96 45 55 1 100 62 79 65 27 90 20 51 2 100 51 72 50 78 15 88 14 100 4 ,100 57 73 61 75. 16 84 20 51 1 78  Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1988-1992 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 1992 205 153 75 49 69 56 73 27 87 16 76 5 l^NGUAGE ARTS 1988 222 198 89 66 84 63 5S. 22 96 46 aa. 1 100 1100 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1989 SCIENCE 1990 1991 1992 SOCIAL STUDIES 1989 1990 1991 1112. , * PASSING GCORE=42O\u0026lt; 88 1992 209 180 86 60 77 69 90 29 97 21 55. 1 50 These scores 170 141 51 55 77 53 55 16 14 IQQ. 3 75 209 160 22 55 71 60 TA 18 E5. 21 55 6 67 205 160 222 159 209 108 170 115 209 118 205 95 222 172 209 146 170 89 209 98 205 107 235 220 78 50 70 64 83 26 84 15 71 5 100 72 48 61 44 1 21 51 45 95 1 100 52 33 42 30 32 26 Ei 18 Ei 1 50 43 61 39 it 17 IQQ. 14 inn 2 50 56, 43 52 37 17 16 iE 5 56 46 33 46 27 35 24 n 7 33 4 80 IL. 70 52 47 52 q.'i 55 TH 53 74 21 ai 42 EA 1 100 49 50 E5. 26 Ei 19 2 IQO 32 A5 29 45 14 Ei 12 E6- 2 50 30 5S 36 16 84 12 E5- 44 33 46 39 51 21 68 10 48 4 soil 212 184 171 152 sq 206 191 53 199 16 2 81 The PASSING SCORE information for '19U8-1992 is based on three administrations of the MPT.COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 LITTLE ROCK 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 A B W 0 A B W 0 A B W O A B W 0 Reading 86 82 96 78 87 83 95 95 87 82 95 96 88 82 98 96 Mathematics 89 85 96 83 87 82 95 90 87 83 94 91 81 87 97 96 Reading 88 84 96 96 90 87 97 95 94 92 97 100 92 89 98 94 Mathematics 89 86 95 96 90 88 96 95 90 88 95 97 89 86 95 91 Language Arts 75 68 89 88 77 70 92 86 78 72 89 90 77 70 90 85 Science 66 56 86 85 72 62 92 82 73 64 90 87 75 67 90 88 Social Studies 70 60 89 88 77 69 94 95 74 66 89 90 74 66 89 85 Reading 94 91 99 93 93 90 99 93 92 90 98 92 92 89 98 97 Mathematics 92 90 96 93 90 86 97 93 91 88 96 90 90 87 96 94 Language Arts 89 84 97 83 86 82 94 88 89 85 95 88 86 82 94 89 Science 70 59 89 78 75 65 94 86 67 55 90 72 68 58 88 86 Social Studies 78 71 90 88 78 72 92 81 73 68 84 74 69 61 84 86 A All students % B Black students % W White students % 0 Other students % A-1COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 LITTLE ROCK YEAR 1989 A B 0 A 1990 B W 0 A 1991 B W 0 A 1992 B W 0 3 Reading 3 Mathematics 6 Reading 6 Mathematics 6 Language Arts 6 Science 6 Social Studies 8 Reading B Mathematics 8 Language Arts 8 Science 8 Social Studies A - All students I W White students % 86 89 88 89 75 66 70 8' 96 92 -I 94 5195 3O8B \n?|85 3 88 92 91 89 67 73 B 0 89 91 90 98 8 8: 5 6 Black students I Other students t 96 9' 4 82 762 * 74 Looking at the reading test results in the 3rd grade in 1989, we note that black students have a passage rate of 82% while white students have a 96% passing rate, a difference of 14 percentage points. Following this group to the 6th grade (the grade they should be in 1992) we see that the rate of passage for black students has improved to 89% while the white student rate of passage improved to 98%, a difference of only 9% points. Thus the disparity between the rates has diminished by 5% points, but this data shows science as an area of concern in this district. We do understand that the students in the 1989 group are not exactly the same students in the 1992, but we feel that looking at these two groups is more accurate than looking at 1989 and 1990 or 1989 and 1991 of the same grade level. A-2COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK 82% 3rd 6th 85% 3rd ?  95% 6th Reading 1989/1992 Math 1989/1992 BLACK STUDENTS 1989 BLACK STUDENTS 1992 WHITE STUDENTS 1989 WHITE STUDENTS 1992 A-3 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST 1989-92 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 LITTLE ROCK RACE BY SEX YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM Reading 86 87 96 95 88 79 98 93 85 79 97 94 89 75 98 97 Mathematics 88 83 96 97 84 80 98 93 84 82 96 92 90 84 97 97 Reading 89 79 98 94 90 84 98 96 95 88 98 97 91 86 99 98 Mathematics 89 82 96 94 89 86 97 95 92 84 96 94 89 83 96 94 Language Arts 74 61 92 85 74 66 96 88 78 64 93 86 76 64 94 86 Science 53 59 85 87 58 66 91 92 63 66 88 92 66 68 91 90 Social Studies 62 58 89 89 69 69 95 93 69 62 89 90 66 66 89 89 Reading 93 89 99 98 91 89 99 98 91 88 99 98 91 86 98 98 Mathematics 91 88 96 97 88 84 98 97 90 86 97 96 90 85 97 94 Language Arts 90 77 99 96 89 75 98 91 91 79 99 91 89 75 97 90 Science 56 61 85 93 64 67 93 95 50 61 88 92 54 64 86 90 BF WF Social Studies 71 72 86 95 74 71 92 91 68 68 81 86 62 61 85 84 Black female students % White female students % BM WM Black male students % White male students % A-4 8COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES ON THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST YEAR 1989 LITTLE ROCK 1989-92 RACE BY SEX ..1990 1991 1992 BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM BF BM WF WM 3 Reading 96 87 96 95 BF WF Mathematics Reading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies Reading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies 88 83 96 - 97 89 89 74 53 62 79 98 94 '5 91 86 * i\\ 82 61 59 58 Black female students t White female students t 96 92 85 89 94 85 87 89 BM WM 7\n91 90 91 50 68 Black male students t White male students X 89 83 96 94 88 99 98 71 86 97 96 79 61 68 99 68 61 91 92 66 Female Disparity / \\ - Male Disparity 3 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 1 Looking at the reading test results in the 3rd grade in 1989, we note that black males have a passage rate of 87% where white males have a 95% passing rate, a difference of 8 percentage points. We also noted the passage rate to be 86% of black females and 96% of white females 96%, a difference of 10 percentage points. Following this group to the 6th grade (the grade they should be in 1992) we see that the rate of passage for black males has decreased to 86% and white males increased to 98%, a difference of 12 percentage points and black females rate of passage increased to 91% while white females increased to 99%, a difference of 8 percentage points. Thus the disparity between race by sex is diminishing, but this data also shows science as an area of concern in this district. We do understand that the students in 1989 group are not exactly the same students in 1992, but we feel that looking at these two groups is more accurate than looking at 1989 and 1990 or 1989 and 1991 of the same grade level. A-5COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 10 86% 3rd 99% 6th It FEMALE 87% 3rd Reading 1 989/1 992 MALE 98% 6th BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1992 WHITE 1992 A-6 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 88% 3rd^ 7 96% 6th / , 83% 3rd 94% 6th FEMALE Math 1989/1992 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1992 WHITE 1992 A-7 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX z 8^ 6th 99% 8th 79% 6th 10 98% 8tha FEMALE Reading 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 j WHITE 1991 A-8 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK / RACE BY SEX 7 7 89% 6th 97% 8th IK 82% 6th 71 / 96% 8th FEMALE Math 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 IfiJ WHITE 1991 A-9 5 COMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 3 71 z 'o- 99% 8th 91% 74% 6th tj 8th 61% 6th n B FEMALE Lang. Arts 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 WHITE 1991 A-IOCOMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX z 3^ z 5^ 88% 8th 92% 8th z 53% 6th 59% 6th FEMALE Science 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 Ui WHITE 1991 A-llCOMPARISON OF PASSING RATES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST LITTLE ROCK ! RACE BY SEX 7\\ Z 71 Z /3 81% Sth /2 86% 8th ^2% 6th 58% 6th FEMALE Social 1989/1991 MALE BLACK 1989 WHITE 1989 BLACK 1991 WHITE 1991 A-12LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMTkRY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 2 TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = STUDENTS FAILING 4204 SCHOOL/NO, TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 7 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 6 27 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 21 10 2 10 2 10 20 8 17 32 15 3 14 2 50 I 40 11 5 5 14 1 25 2 40 12 5 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 ___5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 2 SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING BLACK WHITE 4204 OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 1 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 6 27 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 21 10 2 10 2 10 20 8 37 32 15 3 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 5 14 1 25 3 40 12 5 22 13 16 6 26 11 31 19 4 44 ___5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.4 T-n n -f J Hl-fo A.,. .3,. Ck.c,f-_ Aft^u:^ C,. Apmktt^ At 5 - 7^ \"-1^ - H . ?!- ki 76-Pk X '^-iO iO'kt ?!. __ /r-^3 '^'7-f'l^ y/~ in rp-sr _____ vZrijL._ ___^jJ2Z 'I'i-Vf Hy-6j- 7i f 'J . ^r'/X i 7-Co 7'S^it ^k- -?! 'J H- fj-r? 6.0- 5\u0026lt; r6- (.(. t,S~77 71 Ci\u0026gt;J\u0026gt;\u0026lt;^^ /11. i^. '2k. it- ~73 ^y- 7? J - o /7- 0 tJ ,. kp.'kA_. l/Aa 2 ^1, 5^ - H'i-'ii v/y/tXzMXl 7 MoLiijaJix I)!'., k'i MxA^oM- z*-L ^\u0026lt;4!? 7^-71 \\CJ. VS-J 5 Ai\"- _fe!v_Ci4iX.^ -2\u0026gt;-tJLi. i^hi- .jL|\u0026gt;. 7g-yy vr-7y 33-0 a. T - \u0026lt;9 IVJ '7. __'^. W3- 71\" _ ^^klAVj 3 7 3T-0 -ff- o iz 2i ir- \u0026lt;^5-- A-/3 L. }?.. hl- - o lx_ 3i - Hl Z\u0026lt;j|- z? VV- 7! Ll-. Ht- a Hi-7c3 ir- fj 7i-'4\u0026lt;i S't'JJ' ^7'7i- S'l-ti .73-4J- r3.:L0 fl~kr il-HI '-/i. -vj y'f- 71- H\u0026lt;)\u0026lt;3 Hi-ir 3V-1Z St-- O S^f fz- HI 3\u0026lt;l- \u0026lt;3 7^-3^ Ikl)^ 'A. _ 'i' -J ___Ji 2^~ki Ijito.uI'^ rr\u0026gt;'\u0026lt;t-i. ^:i-7-i. ir-ct yy-rz Aj2 y/k-iz^ /I IL - 6 'I. 06/26/92 15:37 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/003 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324 - 2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE SUBJECT f^umber' of Pagtt (include cover pc^e) Fax Phon Speed Dial FOR DATA. PROCESSING OFFICE USE ONLY Transmiaei By Date Time R 03/91 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was adm-inisrAred in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through eleven. Since this is the first year for administering the Stanford, concrete match between the Stanford-8 and the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) is difficult. \" several areas that were not tested by the MAT-6, purposes this is a new beginning. 7 ' ' ~ districtwide data follows. The Stanford includes For practical A very brief summary of I. When all student scores are reported as district totals, students scored at/above the 50th percentile in the following areas\nReading Mathematics Language Arts Science Social Studies Basic Battery Complete Battery - Grade 6 - Grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 - Grades 3, 6, and 9 - Grades 6 and 9 - Grades 6 and 11 - Grades 6 and 11 - Grades 6 and 11 II. White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subjects and at all grade levels reporting. Highest, 77th percentile Lowest, 57th percentile - Grade 2 mathematics - Grade 9 mathematics. a III. Other students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subjects and grades except grade one science which was at the 49th percentile. Highest, 87th percentile - Grade 2 mathematics - Grade 8 mathematics IV. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all subjects and at all grade levels reporting. Highest, 48th percentile Lowest, 26th percentile - Grade 6 mathematics - Grade 6 social science. - Grade 5 reading. More detailed information relative to individual school results and longitudinal data will be provided later. bjgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAMHIHG, RESEARCH AHU EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/MCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 s t'O oa co ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SC IKMCE BASIC BATTERY .COMPLETE BATTERY VI 1 TOTAL D W 0 2094 1330 697 24 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 40/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42,9 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.0 67/59.1 VI 2 TOTAL B W O 1803 1173 672 28 39/44.1 29/38.1 62/56,2 63/56,9 57/53.0 46/47.7 77/65.6 07/73.6 49/49,7 39/43.9 70/60,9 64/57,4 43/46.3 32/40.0 65/50.0 67/59,3 k-fi 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.0 70/61.2 74/63.5 t-O 3 TOTAL B W O 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.0 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46,1 30/38.8 67/59,1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 67/59.2 61/55.9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/40.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/59.7 to *4 TOTAL 1067 44/47.0 50/53,9 46/47.6 46/47,6 48/49.0 40/49.0 47/48.2 5 TOTAL I) H 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43.3 26/35.6 63/55.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 40/48.7 30/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43,1 65/58,2 70/60.8 44/46,8 34/41,1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62,4 6 TOTAL 8 W O 1043 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/40.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50,3 41/45.4 60/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63.5 75/64.0 59/54.5 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62,0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64,0 73/62,6 t- W o Cr o o e 0) *7 TOTAL 1694 42/45.5 45/47.4 43/46.1 42/45.6 47/40.6 46/47.9 46/47.7 8 TOTAL D W O 1573 1060 493 19 41/45.2 29/30.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/44.0 30/38,8 59/54.7 87/73.6 40/49.1 30/43.6 69/60.7 81/60.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 03/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/50.6 84/71.2 43/46.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72i6 1 1 O a K 9 TOTAL 8 H O 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 68/59.6 54/51,9 42/45,9 73/63,0 69/60,6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62.6 71/61.4 47/48,2 34/41,1 70/61,0 71/61,7 48/48.0 . 34/41.1 73/62.6 73/62.9 *10 TOTAL 1602 49/49.2 37/43.2 40/48,6 45/47.3 43/46.2 47/40.4 47/40.5 11 TOTAL B W 0 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60,7 66/58,4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 40/49.1 35/41.9 66/58,5 61/55.1 47/40.6 32/40.2 68/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61.0 o * Data by raoa Cor grades 4, T, and 10 is unavailable at this time. Thia Intormatlon will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objdotlves are combined and reflected as one score under EHVinONKSHT. 1 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Mabelvale Junior High READING MATHEMATICS 9 0 9 99 ,989 LANGUAGE ARTS 90 991 1992 199 1990 SCIENCE 19 992 I 1993 SOCIAL STUDIES 1969 I 1990 I 1991 ** PASSING SCORE=42O4 . 1989 11990l19911199 99 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Parcent Passed 174 158 91 162 153 94 191 163 85 175 146 83 179 157 88 174 160 92 162 154 95 191 163 85 175 154 88 179 157 88 174 150 86 162 135 83 191 160 84 175 128 73 179 132 74 174 111 64 162 119 73 191 111 58 175 86 49 179 105 59 174 128 74 162 126 78 191 125 65 175 85 49 179 116 65 171 160 91 166 159 96 193 178 92 175 153 87 179 151. 84 BLACK HALES Number Passed 38 48 42 37 49 41 50 44 41 52 34 39 41 32 38 26 35 26 19 33 31 37 31 18 33 Percent Pjsed 79 91 74 70 80 85 94 77 77 85 71 74 72 60 62 54 66 46 36 54 65 70 54 34 54 4 BMCK FEMALES Number Passed 39 38 49 51 48 40 39 47 55 46 36 36 48 42 39 18 23 21 25 22 23 31 31 25 29 Percent Passed 87 90 82 84 87 89 93 78 90 84 80 86 80 69 71 40 55 35 41 40 51 74 52 41 53 WHITE MALES Number Passed 39 39 30 23 25 38 37 30 24 25 39 34 30 22 22 37 36 26 17 20 38 33 27 15 25 Percent Passed 100 100 94 92 93 97 95 -94 96 93 100 87 94 88 81 95 92 81 68 74 97 85 84 60 93 Number Passed 41 24 36 33 34 40 24 36 33 33 40 23 36 31 32 29 21 34 24 29 35 22 32 26 28 Percent Passed 100 100 100 97 100 98 100 100 97 97 98 96 IQQ. 11 54. 71 85 55. 57 82 76 52. Number Passed Percent Passed 100 100 100 too 50 100 100 100 50 50 100 3 75 83 50 50 100 100 67 50 50 1 100 75 4 67 50 50 51 3k 58. 1 4 6 2 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 1 I I * Total for all students in the \"other race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Mann Magnet Junior High READING 8 MATHEMATICS 90 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Paased_ 269 258 96 278 271 97 282 268 95 272 248 91 256 234 91 269 257 96 278 255 92 282 246 87 BLACK MALES Number Passed 65 64 61 58 52 66 59 55 Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed 89 80 98 48 9a 57 100 8 100 98 85 96 59 aa 60 100 3 75 91 81 94 57 95 63 100 6 100 83 94 90 37 100. 52 100 7 100 87 68 87 49 aa 58 97 1 88 90 79 96 48 28 56 98 8 100 91 75 84 58 az 59 98 4 100 82 69 80 56 az 61 97 5 83 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 LAUGUAGE ARTS 1589 1550 1551 1552 1593 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1591 1592 1993 1589 SOCIAL STUDIES 1590 1591 195? Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1589 1990 1991 272 256 247 221 91 61 87 92 88 36 az 52 100 6 86 86 49 82 61 78 48 a6. 56 93 7 88 Total for al1 students in the \"Other race category, were not reported by gender. 269 248 92 278 267 96 282 261 93 272 252 93 256 231 90 269 210 78 278 235 85 282 201 71 272 202 74 256 173 68 269 217 81 278 237 85 282 225 80 272 216 79 256 187 73 270 263 97 282 272 96 284 276 97 273 257 94 256 234 91 59 ai 76 93 48 aa 57 100 8 100 58 85 96 60 loa 60 100 4 100 55 az 81 94 56 az. 63 100 6 100 These scores 58 aa 101 96 36 az 51 98 6 86 47 7a 73 94 46 az 58 97 7 88 48 aa 55 67 48 98 53 93 6 75 53 41 49 31 50 55 49 51 36 az 64 72 59 98 56 aa 3 75 61 43 50 53 88 60 95 4 67 7a 65 62 35 95 46 aa 7 100 az 36 46 47 94 52 az 7 88 as 62 76 48 98 51 89 6 75 13 60 The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. 66 74 58 97 55 92 3 75 60 70 75 71 44 56 52 87 58 92 6 100 35 46 95 49 94 6 86 92 54 90 7 88LITT'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE a SCHOOL: Pulaski Heights Junior High 1989 1990 READING Alli. 1992 1993 1969 MATHEMATICS 19^ Alii. ,969 LANGUAGE ARTS 1990 9 9 9 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1969 199 SOCIAL STUDIES ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1990 1992 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Paaaed 220 198 90 217 189 87 223 198 89 223 195 87 234 210 90 220 191 87 217 189 87 223 193 87 223 196 88 234 202 86 220 196 89 217 190 88 223 187 84 223 174 78 234 196 84 220 144 65 217 167 77 223 158 71 223 163 73 234 168 72 220 163 74 217 183 84 223 148 66 223 162 73 234 178 76 223 202 91 219 204 93 223 207 93 228 202 89 234 210 90 1 BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 45 80 53 87 48 100 49 79 65 83 34 SI 38 13 56 85 44 98 57 86 51 Ik 33 SI 49 IS 66 86 35 100 41 13 53 hl 46 96 49 IS 65 83 35 100 36 hS 53 80 44 98 52 79 58 84 32 94 44 43 48 34 44 44 30 41 29 47 35 35 48 23 41 35 71 (A 83 34 SI 77 53 87 47 98 77 69 88 32 91 65 51 77 43 96 hl 46 67 30 5a ir 60 78 32 51 54 21 34 45 54. 66 54 69 33 ,56 28 44 58 71 31 Ai 32 56 41 ii 35 IQQ 63 35 iZ 46 5t 77 44 62 56 61 32 38 53 78 34 SL 48 40 89 55 32 54, 69 34 52 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 48 35 57 54 58 47 35 57 54 58 49 36 56 54 58 44 35 54 53 56 43 35 50 51 54 Percent Paaaed 96 97 100 100 too 94 97 100 100 too 98 1130. 98 100, 100. 58. 52 55. 55 51 .86 52 54, 53 38 OTHER STUDENTS 6 3 0 2 5 3 0 2 5 3 0 2 3 0 1 4 5 3 0 2 Number Passed li It Percent Passed 80 100 100 too 80 83 100 - 100 50. 51 100. lOO 50 521 lOO 50 50. 531 ino mol Total for all students in the Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.SCHOOL: Southwest Junior High iW. READING -1392 -1393 1989 MATHEMATICS -1390 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 TEST RESULTS INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 Revised August 1993 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent PasaeJ BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Peened BLACK FEMAl.E.S Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed J991 -1391 language arts - Jlii  1989 I 1990 i 199 11 199 1993 . 1989 SCIENCE 209 185 89 170 143 84 209 186 89 205 163 80 196 159 81 209 176 84 170 134 79 209 161 11 205 153 196 156 209 180 170 209 1990 I 1991 9: SOCIAL STUDIES .990 199 992 19 PASSING SCORE=42o'T 989 199011991 1992 63 60 67 51 61 81 70 91 28 93 22 100 2 100 85 52 81 16 94 13 93 2 50 86 72 76 62 79 51 72 57 73 7^_80_ 86 141 83 160 77 205 160 78 196 138 70 209 108 52 170 115 68 209 118 56 205 95 46 196 117 60 209 146 70 170 89 52 209 98 47 205 196 107 52 120 61 212 184 86 171 152 89 206 191 93 199 162 81 1993 194 160 82 49 69 61 76 60 55 55 50 46 33 21 21 21 10 58 43 43 33 44 49 61 JI 46 73 90 59 77 58 85 65 84 50 78 61 75 56 73 57 84 69 90 53 83 60 74 64 83 55 81 30 39 39 61 37 46 18 95 22 100 28 90 20 95 17 85 19 83 6 5 4 61[100 80 * Total for all students in the were not reported by gender. 27 90 20 91 2 100 \"Other\" 15 88 14 100 4 100 race 16 84 20 21 7 78 n 87 16 21. 5 16 80 18 21 100 I 80 category. 29 97 21 1 50 16 18 26 15 26 94 14 IQQ, 3 15 These scores 95 84 75 87 17 100 17 89 21 6 15 n 5 19 3 67 100 60, 18 .82 1 50 14 16 100. 73. passing score infonnation is based on three administrati. ons of the 2 50 5 56 n 27 35 24 77 7 33 4 32 30 33 49 63 45 38 46 61 41 60 14 70 14 1 4 80 I 80 50 65 29 45 36 44 39 51 39 57 26 87 19 38. 2 100 14 82 12 38 2 50 16 21 16 84 68 80 12 10 13 55. 3. 52 4 4 3 44 80 60 1RECEIVED TO: FROM:' DATE: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr.  V -IO -1 nno May 16, 1993 SUBJ: AMPT Test Summary/Six Years MAY 1 8 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams.-JR-p 6\u0026lt;7n\u0026lt;JlA\u0026gt;n^ Xx/ziiv O^C^yilAnt^ c^/jopcvxCt^ lU^4\u0026gt;i-^. h LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1993 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 1941 1232 682 26 46/47.7 34/41.3 67/59.0 61/55.8 48/48.8 35/41.8 70/61.2 65/57.9 45/47.5 33/40,6 68/59.8 61/55.6 43/46.3 31/39.4 66/58.7 55/52.5 48/48.9 35/41.8 70/61.3 62/56.6 42/45.8 28/38.0 67/59.5 58/54.3 2 TOTAL B W O 1913 1214 668 30 41/45.0 29/38.1 63/57.1 64/57.5 61/55.8 49/49.2 79/67.2 84/71.1 50/50.1 38/43.8 70/61.2 67/59.5 48/48.9 35/42.1 70/61.0 61/56.1 47/48.5 34/41.2 70/61.0 72/62.4 47/48.6 33/40.8 72/62.1 73/62.7 3 TOTAL B H O 1770 1099 641 26 43/46.3 29/38.6 67/59.0 61/56.1 54/52.3 42/45.6 73/62.8 84/70.7 48/48.7 35/42.0 68/59.9 63/57.2 46/48.0 32/40.0 70/61.1 66/58.9 46/47.9 33/40.6 68/59,7 68/60.0 47/48.5 34/41.2 69/60.4 71/61.7 46/47.8 32/40.0 69/60.6 70/61.2 4 TOTAL B W 0 1716 1094 598 23 45/47.5 33/40.7 68/59.9 60/55.4 61/55.9 52/50.8 76/65.1 79/67.0 53/51.5 41/45.0 73/63.1 68/59.8 53/51.5 40/44.7 74/63.5 74/63.2 59/54.5 46/48.0 78/66.2 73/62.6 53/51.6 41/45.2 73/63.1 71/61.6 53/51.8 40/44.9 75/64.2 72/62.2 5 TOTAL B W O 1821 1189 606 23 39/44.1 27/37.0 64/57.7 51/50.3 57/53.5 46/48.1 74/63.7 71/61.6 49/49.6 39/44.1 68/60.1 60/55.5 48/49.0 35/41.7 73/62.9 59/55.0 52/51.2 42/45.6 72/62.0 60/55.2 46/48.0 35/41.9 68/59.8 61/56.0 47/48.3 34/41.5 70/61.1 61/56.1 6 TOTAL B W 0 1855 1227 603 24 52/50.9 39/44.0 75/64.5 74/63.2 58/54.4 49/49.6 74/63.8 81/68.2 53/51.8 44/46.8 71/61.6 67/59.2 55/52.6 44/46.7 75/64.0 78/66.4 59/54.5 48/48.9 77/65.4 77/65.5 56/53.2 46/47.7 75/64.0 75/64.5 56/53.1 45/47.1 76/64.8 77/65.6 7 TOTAL B W 0 1718 1120 575 21 42/45.5 29/38.4 67/59.4 58/54.0 45/47.1 35/41.9 63/57.2 63/57.2 46/47.6 34/41.3 68/59.8 63/57.1 46/47.8 31/39.8 74/63.4 70/60.9 49/49.7 39/44.0 70/60.9 64/57.4 44/46.9 32/40.4 67/59.4 65/58.0 44/47.0 31/39.8 69/60.5 66/58.4 8 TOTAL B W 0 1571 1046 503 20 43/46.5 30/39.2 71/61.5 73/62.6 43/46.2 32/40.3 65/57.9 72/62.5 49/49.6 38/43.6 71/61.9 78/66.3 47/48.3 34/41.5 72/62.4 74/63.7 48/48.8 34/41.5 74/63.6 85/71.6 46/47.9 33/40.8 72/62.0 75/64.4 46/47.7 32/39.9 74/63.3 78/66.1 9 TOTAL B W 0 1506 994 496 15 44/46.6 33/40.5 65/58.3 72/62.5 34/41.4 25/35.6 54/52.0 89/75.6 51/50.5 40/44.9 70/61.2 88/74.3 48/48.9 38/43.7 66/58.8 79/67.3 47/48.5 36/42.4 68/60.1 87/73.4 46/47.7 35/41.7  66/58.9 88/74.7 46/48.0 35/41.6 68/60.0 89/75.5 10 TOTAL B W O 1587 985 572 29 51/50.3 35/41.9 75/64.3 74/63.6 42/45.8 31/39.7 61/55.8 73/62.6 50/50.2 37/43,2 71/61,8 73/62.7 47/48.4 31/39.6 74/63.2 75/64.5 46/48.0 34/41.5 67/59.0 69/60.7 50/50.1 36/42.2 73/62.9 79/66.6 49/49.7 34/41.1 74/63.6 00/67.9 11 TOTAL B W O 1383 791 562 29 47/48.5 32/40.4 68/60.0 66/58.9 40/44.7 28/37.9 58/54.0 65/57.9 46/47.9 32/40.3 66/58.4 66/58.8 46/47.9 31/39.7 67/59.3 59/54.7 48/49.0 34/41.3 68/59.7 67/59.1 48/48.9 33/40.7 68/59.9 71/61.4 48/49.0 32/40.1 70/61.0 69/60.7 * At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 Resvised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Henderson Junior High 19SP READING 19-91 1^92 1^93 -11S9 MATHEMATICS 1990 1991 1989 1990 LAUGUAGE ARTS 9 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1990 1991 Alii 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 A989 1990 -1191 1992 199? ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed 285 265 93 290 261 90 288 242 84 212 174 82 242 206 85 285 266 93 290 270 93 288 254 88 212 183 86 242 197 81 285 259 91 290 240 83 288 231 80 212 160 75 242 181 75 285 210 74 290 205 71 288 166 58 212 120 57 242 136 56 285 240 84 290 245 84 288 162 56 212 141 67 242 180 74 288 280 97 303 282 93 295 263 89 211 179 85 243 214 88 BLACK MALES Number Passed 68 66 70 74 74 68 73 79 76 77 64 59 63 57 60 45 52 53 54 48 62 68 50 56 65 Percent Passed 94 80 74 79 80 94 88 84 81 84 89 71 67 61 65 63 63 2L 60 71 2L BLACK FEMALES Number Passed 98 103 101 61 97 96 104 103 69 89 98 95 98 66 89 73 64 51 32 55 83 87 59 48 81 Percent Passed 90 91 85 77 86 88 52 SL 2a 50. 52. 54 2a 52 52 43. 41 4a 2ii. 11 51 22 52 WHITE MALES Number Passed 43 47 27 12 18 46 49 27 11 16 45 42 26 11 15 42 45 24 11 17 43 46 Percent Passed 91 19 11 18 96 100 100 98 100 55 52 5a 55 55 53 921 53 5a 52 86 52 54 51 54 68 52 -100 % WHITE FEMALES Number Passed 42 34 30 21 14 42 34 31 21 13 42 33 31 21 14 38 33 26 Percent Passed 100 100 97 100 93 100 100 100 100 87 IQQ. 52 IQQ, IQQ 53 90 52 54 18 14 40 34 24 20 12 55 53 93 IQQ 22 55 50 OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed 14 11 14 14 10 14 10 11 13 12 11 12 12 10 10 Percent Passed 93 100 88 100 75 93 91 88 100, 50 67 IQQ. 51 53J 25 55 IQQ 25 53 50 5Q 51 53 IIQQ 100 6 3 6 2 5 3 5 2 6 4 1 * Total for all students in the \"Other\" race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 I Revised August 1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 SCHOOL: Forest Heights Junior High 1989 1990 READING 1991 1122 1993 1989- MATHEMATICS -19 98. 1991 1989 LANGUAGE ARTS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1989 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1991 ** PASSING SCORE=42O4 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed 222 204 Percent Passed 92 258 239 93 218 188 86 225 169 75 228 192 84 222 206 93 258 237 92 218 193 89 225 179 80 228 191 84 222 192 86 258 218 229 177 89 81 225 152 68 228 184 81 222 184 258 213 83 83 218 154 71 225 140 62 228 154 68 222 191 86 258 208 81 218 172 79 225 134 60 228 155 68 226 214 95 261 244 93 219 197 90 218 181 83 227 195 86 195^ 1?^ 19?? 1231 BIACK MALES Humber Passed 59 68 55 49 44 60 67 54 58 Percent BIACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed 84 58 92 49 100 86 78 91 43 100 82 65 79 35 97 59 57 76 27 90 62 82 27 100 86 58 92 49 100 85 79 92 43 100 81 71 87 35 97 70 61 81 26 87 48 68 78 88 26 96 49 70 57 90 46 94 60 76 79 92 41 95 45 67 66 80 33 92 44 53 50 67 22 73 40 53 55 42 41 36 55 55 50 40 37 56 79 89 26 96 76 46 73 49 100 70 68 79 42 98 63 47 57 34 94 49 40 53 25 83 51 53 60 27 100 79 70 75 48 52 48 76 49 100 66 77 40 93 56 38 58 68 34 94 51 26 87 65 24 89 WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed 37 97 42 100 29 100 28 100 34 97 38 100 40 95 29 100 26 93 34 97 38 100 41 98 29 100 28 100 34 97 35 92 40 95 27 93 27 96 33 94 37 97 39 93 28 97 23 82 32 91 OTHER STUDENTS 1 8 4 8 5 1 8 4 8 5 2 8 4 8 5 1 8 4 7 5 2 8 4 7 4 Number Passed percent Fused 50 100 100 89 83 50 100 100 89 83 100 100 100 89 83 50 100 100 78 83 100 100 100 78 67 Total for ill students in the 'Other*' race category, were not reported by gender. These scores The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. ISCHOOL: Dunbar Magnet Jr. High ma. 1990 READING 1991 1993 19 99 MATHEMATICS 1990 AW. Aaai I ALL ETVPEHT? Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMAUS Number Passed Percent Passed OTHER STUDENTS Number Passed Percent Passed w * 219 174 79 63 11. 75 80 13 100 22 100 1 50 169 124 73 152 126 83 242 216 89 230 202 88 219 175 80 169 116 69 152 114 75 242 215 89 40 63 57 16 12 92 15 55 0 0 41 79 42 21 84 22 21 0 0 49 52 66 42 33 54 75 65 90 55 98 42 95 5 100 75 59 46 96 39 5a 6 86 75 76 81 13 100 20 91 0 66 50 67 10 77 13 81 1 100 63 83 38 75 59 82 19 76 24 100 0 55 98 42 95 5 100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 A Ui 230 195 _ai 51 74 54 2. 47 5S. 37 93 6 86 Total for all students in the Other race category, were not reported by gender. 1989 219 148 68 49 56 65 69 13 100 20 91 1 50 LANGUAGE ARTS A990 1991 1992 A993 . 1999 SCIENCE 0 9 9 19 199 SOCIAL STUDIES 0 Aiai Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 Aa89 -19 90 1991 1992 -1993 169 120 71 37 58 58 77 10 77 14 88 1 100 152 117 77 242 210 87 230 194 84 219 105 48 169 94 56 152 76 50 242 160 66 230 155 67 219 128 58 169 101 60 152 85 56 242 168 69 230 154 67 222 175 79 170 126 74 152 136 89 242 222 92 229 203 89 34 65 41 80 18 72 24 100 0 These scores 3 passing score information is based on three administrations MPT. of the 51 78 64 89 49 88 42 95 4 80 47 41 36 18 32 32 45 31 28 38 29 68 60 51 44 9? 37 93 6 86 47 35 37 11 85 17 77 1 50 56 35 49 liiL 51 48 54 58 A2 34 45 23 45 35 49 35 53. 54 57 42 56 26 51 38 53 42 64 11 21 50 46 12 11 18 48 44 12 75 1 100 .24 14 58 0 52. 56. 21 52 11 86 52 39 89 4 80 36 90 6 86 16 73 1 50 16 100 1 100 13 54 40 91 33 83 0 4 80 6 86SCHOOL: Cloverdale Jr, High 1969 1990 READING 1991 1311 1993 J 35 9. MATHEMATICS 0 ALL STUDENTS Number Tested Number Passed Percent Passed BIACK MALES Number Passed Percent Passed BLACK FEMALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE MALES Number Passed Percent Passed WHITE FEMALES Number Passed Number Passed Percent Passed 201 181 90 212 182 _a5 222 186 .84 218 186 85 185 146 -79 201 \\n _aa 212 181 88 44 81 54 81 51 77 58 83 44 76 43 80 51 76 61 59 70 78 57 60 61 87 35 31 36 100 5 100 81 31 94 35 100 3 75 5Q 51 76 55 M 19 21 16 34 31 95 40 93 6 100 100 26 93 3 100 25 93 4 100 94 94 35 97 35 100 5 100 3 75 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS FIVE YEAR SUMMARY 1989-1993 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL SUMMARY GRADE 8 LANGUAGE ARTS 199211993 222 180 JU. 218 188 86 185 135 73 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 1969 1990 SCIENCE 1991 1992 1993 1989 SOCIAL STUDIES 1290 1992 1322 Revised August 1993 ** PASSING SCORE=4204 1989 1990 1991 199? 1993 52 79 58 83 39 67 69 82 53 7^ 19 95 34 79 6 100 5. 21 20 95 25 89 3 100 Total for all students in the Other\" race category. 16 1() 24 89 3 75 201 164 8? 212 156 74 222 \\12 218 192 .88 185 154 _a3 201 135 _a7 212 150 _?1 222 135 61 218 139 64 185 94 51 201 124 _6Z 212 135 -64 222 118 6.8 218 156 -72 185 87 _42. 207 181 SJ- 213 219 191 -91. 193 _aa 219 198 -99 185 154 _8J 36 67 38 44 57 67 56 50 45 78 33 51. 43 54 38 55 49 15 30 52 24 44 36 54 31 41 50 21 28 48 57 57 69 84 51 32 59 35 97 4 80 la 19. 58 62 83 38 46 42 46 26 16 21 18 19 55. 100. 86. .54. 1 48 28 37 37 5i 43 59 42 62 28 32 29 18 20 13 33 28 59. aa 90. 95. 62 95 5S 4a 55 21 16 19 11 5Q 95 52 33 94 39 91 28 100 25 93 27 75 30 86 34 79 22 79 22 81 25 69 26 74 25 58 23 82 18 67 2 50 4 bl These scores were not reported by gender. The PASSING SCORE information is based on three administrations of the MPT. 3 100 4 100 5 100 2 50 3 50 2 67 1 25 5 100 2 50 4 bl 2 67 2 50 f 1received AUG 6 1992 Oitice oi Desssregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nAugust 5, 1992 To\nFrom\nMargie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingram^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re\nStanford Achievement Test Results, 1992 I am attaching Stanford-8 results by school at this time. I believe the report is self-explanatory\nhowever, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. bjgSCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BADGETT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 23 10 13 21 16 5 22 17 5 37 36 28 8 26 18 8 21/32.7 24/35.2 18/30.7 41/45.2 48/48.9 36/42.4 16/28.7 17/29.9 15/27.8 27/37.1 23/34.5 30/39.2 25/35.5 28/37.4 22/34.0 19/31.1 20/32.5 17/30.0 31/39.7 24/34.9 59/54.9 44/46.6 35/41.8 71/61.8 36/42.3 23/34.4 80/67.6 33/40.9 28/37.9 51/50.7 30/39.1 21/33.1 66/58.4 39/44.3  31/39.6 67/59.3 27/37.2 23/34.6 43/46.3 52/50.8 50/49.9 58/54.1 35/41.9 33/40.5 44/46.7 20/32.2 16/28.8 40/44.6 28/37.6 27/37.3 30/38.8 38/43.4 35/41.6 49/49.6 33/40.6 30/38.7 45/47.1 31/39.4 46/47.8 32/40.0 29/38.6 35/42.7 35/41.9 32/40.4 16/29.1 14/27.6 23/34.5 32/40.0 33/40.9 27/36.8 23/34.6 23/34.5 24/35.0 20/32.6 21/32.8 20/32.3 29/38.1 27/37.3 34/41.0 22/34.0 22/33.4 26/36.1 21/32.9 20/32.3 24/35.1 34/41.2 29/38.4 46/47.6 45/47.2 43/46.0 50/49.9 41/45.4 41/45.3 42/45.6 41/45.0 38/43.8 49/49.7 46/48.1 56/53. 1 41/45.4 39/44.2 47/48.3 41/45.0 38/43.8 46/47.9 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: BALE GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS language SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 40 35 4 1 39 33 5 34/41.3 30/39.1 66/58.4 58/54.2 31/39.4 25/35.7 73/62.9 90/77.0 25/35.6 22/33.4 58/54.0 32/40.1 29/38.4 25/35.9 69/60.4 30/39.0 29/38.3 24/35.2 69/60.7 62/56.4 27/37.3 23/34.5 65/58.0 56/53.2 23/34.4 21/32.8 42/45.9 35/42.1 32/40.0 63/56.9 32/40.3 30/38.9 55/52.6 32/40.3 28/37.4 72/62.5 30/39.2 28/37.5 52/50.9 29/38.4 26/36.4 54/52.3 41  21/32.7 33 7 1 53 51 39 9 3 38 30 8 19/31.4 30/39.1 17/29.9 27/36.8 27/37.0 22/33.8 53/51.3 26/36.6 28/37.7 22/33.7 52/51.0 42/45.8 42/45.7 42/45.9 44/46.8 40/44.4 36/42.7 51/50.7 61/55.9 26/36.7 27/36.9 26/36.1 20/32.3 27/37.3 27/36.9 30/39.1 27/37.1 34/41.4 33/40.7 40/44.7 34/41.3 31/39.3 30/38.7 35/41.9 30/39.0 31/39.4 26/36.7 27/36.8 32/40.4 27/36.8 25/35.5 41/45.1 40/44.5 40/44.6 59/54.5 35/41.9 33/40.5 43/46.4 7/42.8 4/41.1 t 8/49.0 1/45.2 35/41.7 32/40.0 4?/47.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unava'able at this ti This information will be provided at a later date. .,e. 33/40.5 26/36.6 59/55.0 45/47.3 36/42.7 28/38.0 66/58.4 34/41. 31/39. .8 44/46.7 42/45.6 40/44.3 37/42.3 55/52.5 33/40.7 29/38.6 47/48.4 40/44.5 31/39.4 28/37.5 43/46.3 31/39.8 28/37.4 47/48.3 39/44.3 30/39.2 27/36.8 46/47.9 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEN.E and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combine and reflected one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: BASELINE F.T.EMFNTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 1 TOTAL B W O 61 38 21 2 34/41.3 32/40.0 42/45.6 11/23.8 31/39.4 27/37.2 41/45.3 9/21.5 28/37.5 25/35.8 30/39.0 61/55.6 30/38.7 26/36.3 39/44.1 16/29.0 33/40.8 29/38.5 39/44.0 52/51.0 27/37.0 25/35.5 34/41.2 9/21.2 2 TOTAL B W o 39 27 10 1 28/37.4 24/34.9 38/2,3.5 34/41.3 37/42.8 28/37.8 61/55.7 59/54.8 43/46.1 33/40.7 68/60.1 43/46.3 25/35.7 19/31.4 47/48.4 9/21.8 30/38.9 24/35.1 47/48.2 39/44.1 28/37.9 22/33.6 47/48.4 35/41.9 3 TOTAL B W O * '53 42 11 30/38.8 25/36.0 49/49.3 54/52.0 47/48.2 78/66.5 41/45.4 36/42.2 64/57.6 34/41.5 28/37.6 62/56.5 40/44.4 35/41.6 59/54.9 40/44.5 34/41.4 62/56.6 38/43.3 31/39.8 63/56.7 4 TOTAL t B W O 42 .38/43.8 60/55.3 41/45.3 43/46.2 54/52.2 44/46.8 46.6 5 TOTAL B W O 38 30 8 30/38.8 32/39.9 23/34.7 50/49.9 49/49.6 52/51.-1 41/45.2 39/44.3 47/48.3 37/43.0 37/42.8 39/43.9 35/41.9 35/A2.0 34/41.2 37/43.2 38/43.8 34/41.1 35/42.1 36/42.6 32/40.2 6 TOTAL B W O 32 28 4 40/44.6 38/43.8 50/50.2 39/44.3 39/43.9 44/46.6 38/43.5 38/43.7 36/42.4 42/45.5 39/44.2 59/54.8 45/47.1 43/46.2 57/53.7 37/43.2 37/42.8 43/46.1 37/42.9 36/42.2 46/47.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information ill be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BOOKER MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY  1 TOTAL B W o 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 89 49 39 1 82 48 32 2 - 92 50 39 3 89 87 50 35 2 87 46 38 3 39/44.1 27/37.2 55/52.7 46/47.9 42/45.7 30/39.2 56/53.3 73/62.9 38/43.8 26/36.6 55/52.6 62/56.4 36/42.6 20/32.5 60/55.5 35/41.9 41/45.4 29/38.4 57/53.8 60/55.3 35/41.7 21/33.2 54/52.2 55/52.6 46/48.0 32/40.1 68/59.7 61/55.8 63/56.8 49/49.4 78/66.2 91/78.5 51/50.7 39/44.3 68/59.7 63/56.7 46/48.1 32/40.1 67/59.3 69/60.3 51/50.7 36/42.2 73/62.8 71/61.5 52/50.8 35/41.6 74/63.7 74/63.5 40/44.9 25/35.9 59/55.0 74/63.8 52/51.1 39/44.0 64/57.6 94/82.5 47/48.2 35/42.0 58/54.2 89/75.9 43/46.1 27/36.9 63/56.8 71/61.5 40/44.6 27/36.9 55/52.4 85/71.8 46/47.7 32/40.2 60/55.4 86/73.1 44/46.6 29/38.3 60/55.3 87/73.2 61/55.9 47/48.5 34/41.2 64/57.7 73/62.6 59/54.6 40/44.5 78/66.1 74/63.8 67/59.5 56/53.3 60/55.2 59/54.9 61/55.9 60/55.5 63/57.2 55/52.8 72/62.1 87/74.0 55/52.6 44/46.7 69/60.2 50/49.9 53/51.8 43/46.4 65/58.3 77/65.4 52/50.9 39/44.3 67/59.1 82/69.4 53/51.8 46/47.6 63/57.1 72/62.4 52/50.8 41/45.4 64/57.4 81/68.7 51/50.7 41/45.0 65/57.9 83/69.8 60/55.4 46/48.1 75/64.1 66/58.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 53/51.7 40/4.9 68/60.0 54/52.1 65/57.9 53/51.7 77/65.2 72/62.1 59/54.9 44/47.0 75/64.3 63/57.1 59/54.9 44/46.6 76/64.9 65/57.9 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflcctad as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTl : ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 BRADY ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W o 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 64 40 23 59 41 16 2 - '43 32 11 57 60 48 10 2 60 38 22 48/48.7 39/44.1 62/56.5 57/53.7 45/47.3 74/63.5 46/48.1 34/41.0 69/60.3 36/42.7 27/37.1 55/52.4 53/51.3 41/45.4 71/61.5 47/48.6 36/42.7 66/58.8 38/43.6 33/40.8 51/50.3 42/45.8 26/36.5 18/31.0 54/52.2 35/42.0 27/37.2 24/35.4 32/40.4 77/65.5 42/45.6 29/38.1 66/58.9 53/51.7 48/48.9 62/56.5 82/69.6 44/46.7 31/39.5 80/67.5 50/50.2 45/47.5 41/45.2 57/53.6 87/73.3 41/45.3 30/39.2 62/56.2 51/50.7 50/50.0 57/53.8 35/41.7 33/40.7 22/34.0 69/60.5 39/44.0 35/41.8 33/40.7 39/44.3 61/56.1 45/47.1 36/42.5 60/55.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 46/47.9 41/45.1 59/54.9 47/48.6 44/46.9 39/44.2 56/53.0 54/52.2 44/47.0 39/44.0 58/54.0 55/52.6 27/37.3 19/31.6 57/53.8 31/39.8 24/35.0 57/53.8 33/40.8 23/34.6 66/58.9 30/39.1 20/32.6 64/57.8 40/44.4 33/40.9 29/38.6 42/45.8 84/70.6 48/48.9 37/42.8 67/59.5 43/46.4 32/-. 0.4 31/39.4 35/41.9 66/58.4 51/\"'O. 6 41 Al 5.2 68/79.9 40/44.6 38/43.7 35/41.7 31/39.6 43/46.4 82/69.0 33/40.5 29/38.3 41/45.3 82/69.3 44/46.8 32/40.3 65/58.0 44/46.8 32/39.9 66/58.7 **At Grades 1 and 2 the .SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE I TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 CARVER MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 67 38 26 3 87 49 38 -90 49 40 1 94 93 48 43 2 96 53 41 2 78/66.0 70/61.3 85/71.8 89/75.7 84/70.8 78/65.9 90/76.5 94/83.4 71/61.6 62/56.5 81/68.8 75/64.3 58/54.2 46/47.8 71/61.8 82/69.5 80/67.5 73/62.7 87/73.6 90/76.7 76/65.1 68/59.7 85/71.6 90/76.9 64/57.7 48/48.9 82/63.0 81/68.3 64/57.8 86/72.3 72/62.1 58/54.3 85/72.2 60/55.2 44/46.7 78/66.1 72/62.1 54/52.2 88/74.9 73/62.6 54/52.1 89/76.1 63/56.9 38/43.7 86/72.5 95/84.6 79/66.6 61/55.6 92/79.3 99/99.0 75/64.3 55/52.5 91/78.4 93/81.1 70/61.0 48/49.0 89/75.4 81/68.5 69/60.2 47/48.2 88/74.4 92/79.6 72/62.3 51/50.3 89/76.2 98/93.3 72/62.2 49/49.4 90/77.2 97/89.6 67/59.1 84/70.9 71/61.6 73/62.9 70/61.3 74/63.5 74/63.7 56/53.1 34/41.2 77/65.7 82/69.0 70/60.8 51/50.3 85/71.4 95/85,2 62/56.6 46/47.9 77/65.6 84/71.0 73/62.6 47/48.6 91/77.6 90/77.2 63/5U.8 46/47.8 77/65.8 91/78.1 61/56.0 41/45.4 79/67.0 88/74.4 63/57.2 42/45.7 82/69.2 91/77.7 76/64.7 63/57.2 88/74.6 73/63.0 79/66.7 68/60.1 89/75.7 67/59.0 71/61.4 61/55.7 82/69.4 45/47.4 79/67.3 69/60.5 90/76.4 63/56.9 79/66.9 70/61.2 88/74.3 78/66.4 78/66.2 68/59.7 88/74.8 68/59.6 79/67.2 69/60.2 90/76.5 68/60.0 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com! ined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 CHICOT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY A 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 85 52 32 72 48 23 1 62 39 22 59 59 35 24 53 33 18 2 34/41.3 25/35.6 52/51.2 46/47.7 38/43.6 59/54.7 33/40.8 24/34.8 53/51.7 32/39.9 22/33.6 50/50.1 35/41.8 24/35.3 55/52.6 35/41.6 26/36.7 50/50.0 32/39.9 25/35.8 44/46.8 92/79.6 47/48.6 40/44.5 61/56.0 92/79.6 43/46.2 34/41.1 60/55.3 92/79.6 31/39.4 23/34.3 48/48.8 83/68.5 37/43.0 28/37.6 55/52.4 96/86.9 36/42.4 26/36.4 56/52.9 97/89.6 32/40.1 31/39.3 35/41.9 52/50.9 48/48.9 50/55.3 45/47.4 42/45.5 52/51.0 34/41.3 32/40.3 39/44.0 41/45.1 38/43.6 46/48.1 41/45.0 38/43.3 47/48.5 39/44.1 36/42.2 46/48.1 -38/43.4 38/43.4 29/38.3 51/50.6 47/48.2 34/41.4 62/56.3 92/78.9 51/50.5 32/40.2 38/43.7 40/44.5 39/44.1 37/43.1 48/48.9 40/44.9 58/54.4 44/46.8 38/43.4 50/50.0 89/75.4 47/48.3 41/45.0 56/53.0 46/47.8 38/43.6 54/52.3 88/74.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at thi^ time. This information will be provided at a later dace. 41/45.1 31/39.4 56/53.4 46/^17.8 38/43.7 57/53.9 40/44.8 33/40.5 52/51.2 40/44.8 32/39.9 54/52.0 50/50.2 39/44.0 65/58.3 90/76.9 52/a.0 44/4 6.6 61/56.1 90/\n6.9 47/48.4 37/42.9 59/54.5 94/83.4 47/48.2 36/42.4 59/55.0 94/82.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SC.EHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W o 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL it B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUtlMARY 1992 r.I.EMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 37 30 6 1 45 33 12 -47 36 10 1 47 49 35 14 62 51 10 1 51/50.4 50/50.1 56/53.0 40/44.7 73/62.8 71/61.8 84/71.2 36/42.5 51/50.6 49/49.7 62/56.2 43/46.3 47/48.5 40/44.9 83/70.0 14/27.2 61/55.8 59/54.9 72/62.4 37/43.0 56/53.2 54/52.0 71/61.4 28/37.7 42/45.9 34/41.1 67/19.4 40/44.7 38/43.3 46/47.9 77/65.6 42/45.9 43/46.3 37/43.1 57/53.8 43/46.2 43/46.3 47/48.2 10/23.0 60/55.5 49/49.7 85/72.0 63/57.0 60/55.4 68/60.0 97/89.6 67/59.0 59/54.6 53/51.5 71/61.8 64/57.8 63/57.1 71/61.9 57/53.7 46/47.7 38/43.6 68/59.6 58/54.2 54/51.9 70/61.2 84/70.9 48/48.9 54/52.3 47/48.5 71/61.4 47/48.6 49/49.3 44/46.9 12/25.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 65/58.2 60/55.2 79/66.7 48/48.7 37/43.2 74/63.7 49/49.7 39/44.0 77/65.5 57/53.7 53/51.6 68/60.0 85/71.8 59/54.5 56/53.0 65/58.3 87/73.7 53/51.7 50/50.1 60/55.1 89/75.8 54/52.0 50/50.2 61.55.7 90/77.0 56/53.3 57/53.8 57/53.9 57/53.8 46/48.1 39/44.0 64/57.7 44/46.7 43/46.1 54/52.3 8/20.4 51/50.6 49/49.2 58/54.2 51/50.3 5 0 / 5 0.2 54/52.2 28/37.7 50/50.1 45/47.1 63/57.1 49/49.6 43/46.5 63/57.1 53/51.5 53/51.4 57/53.8 28/37.7 51/50.4 50/50.2 56/53.1 23/34.4 **At Grade? 1 and 2 the SCiZNCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are coml ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION I STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 DODD ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B H O 41 27 13 1 22/33.9 22/33.8 23/34.1 23/34.4 30/38.8 31/39.7 28/37.9 11/24.2 19/31.2 21/33.2 13/26.5 18/30.7 22/34.0 23/34.3 20/32.6 42/45.8 25/35.5 28/37.6 19/31.8 13/26.3 21/32.7 22/33.5 20/31.9 10/23.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 42 17 24 30/39.0 26/36.1 34/41.5 37/43.0 28/37.6 45/47.2 43/46.4 26/36.6 59/54.6 35/42.0 22/33.4 47/48.6 32/39.9 19/31.3 43/46.5 36/42.3 27/37.0 44/46.7 3 TOTAL B W O 32 18 13 1 26/36.5 21/32.8 34/41.1 38/43.6 45/47.4 45/47.4 45/47.4 45/47.4 39/44.3 36/42.6 43/46.5 45/47.4 32/39.9 26/36.5 38/43.5 56/53.2 27/37.2 25/35.7 30/38.7 38/43.6 34/41.5 32/39.9 38/43.4 42/45.8 31/39.8 28/38.0 35/41.8 41/45.2 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 30 41 24 17 52 27 25 44/46.8 43/46.5 46/47.9 40/44.7 59/54.5 43/46.4 74/63.3 54/52.0 42/45.6 38/43.5 37/43.1 45/47.4 42/45.5 58/54.3 60/55.5 55/52.5 52/51.1 54/52.0 50/49.9 44/46.8 46/47.6 42/45.7 45/48.1 49/49.4 43/46.2 49/49.7 53/51.4 45/47.1 48/49.1 52/50.9 44/46.7 52/51.2 49/49.7 56/52.9 58/54.4 49/49.7 67/59.5 59/54.6 49/49.7 68/60.0 60/55.3 51/50.5 69/60.4 56/53.2 49/49.2 64/57.6 56/53.4 48/48.9 65/58.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will ba .rovided at a later date. *At Gr-des 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are . rabined and reflected and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT*\" NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 46 38 7 32 26 5 1 37 29 8 35 36 32 3 1 36 29 6 1 35/42.1 29/38.1 70/61.0 42/45.8 36/42.3 74/63.4 22/34.0 16/29.1 67/59.4 30/38.9 23/34.4 72/62.1 30/39.0 23/34.2 73/62.6 33/40.5 26/36.3 70/61.3 27/36.9 19/31.6 65/57.9 82/6-9.3 51/50.4 43/46.1 74/63.2 99/99.0 36/42.5 28/38.0 63/60.1 86/72.8 35/42.0 29/38.3 58/54.1 91/78.2 32/40.3 23/34.7 69/60.6 94/82.7 31/39.8 22/33.9 71/61.7 95/84.6 29/38.6 21/32.8 68/59.6 50/50.1 42/45.5 79/67.0 45/47.1 35/41.6 79/67.1 29/38.1 21/32.9 63/56.8 41/45.3 31/39.5 78/66.3 38/43.7 30/38.7 72/62.0 36/42.4 27/36.8 72/62.4 39/44.2 54/52.1 43/46.5 40/44.6 42/45.5 43/46.2 41/45.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 61/55.8 3/10.4 40/44.5 31/39.8 77/65.4 57/53.7 40/44.8 39/44.0 52/50.8 39/44.1 50/49.9 45/47.5 68/60.0 62/56.4 39/44.0 35/41.8 77/65.4 16/29.1 30/38.7 27/36.9 61/55.7 16/29.1 38/^3.3 36/42.3 70/61.1 10/23.0 31/39.6 29/38.1 67/59.0 18/30.7 30/39.1 27/37.3 71/61.8 15/28.2 46/47.7 41/45.0 68/59.6 60/55.3 50/49.9 43/46.3 80/67.7 46/47.9 59/54.6 53/51.4 81/68.2 76/34.9 47/48.4 41/45.0 73/63.0 62/56.4 47/48.5 41/45.1 75/64.1 61/55.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be prov ed at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are comb-'ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 72 34 37 1 45 12 32 1 48 21 27 69 48 28 20 45 24 20 1 63/56.9 36/42.3 84/70.7 68/59.9 71/61.4 42/45.6 89/76.0 68/59.9 55/52.6 28/37.6 79/66.8 53/51.6 50/50.0 30/38.7 70/51.1 30/39.0 67/59.3 39/44.0 87/73.3 67/59.3 61/55.6 29/38.4 84/71.3 62/56.4 62/56.5 37/42.8 70/61.0 92/7-9.6 68/59.9 33/40.7 77/65.7 99/99.0 54/52.0 26/36.2 63/57.1 86/72.8 55/52.7 21/33.1 67/59.4 81/68.5 63/57.1 32/40.1 72/62.5 97/89.6 64/57.5 30/38.9 74/63.5 97/89.6 58/54.1 26/36.1 31/68.1 52/51.1 49/49.7 23/34.2 83/70.4 62/56.2 40/44.4 81/68.7 97/89.6 77/65.8 49/49.3 91/78.7 59/54.5 35/41.6 75/64.5 61/55.6 29/38.3 82/69.0 63/57.0 30/38.9 84/71.0 67/59.2 36/42.2 86/72.4 66/58.5 32/40.2 86/72.6 64/57.5 54/51.9 51/50.3 53/:\u0026gt;l. 5 57/53.7 56/52.9 68/59.9 45/47.1 90/76.9 56/52.9 38/43.8 77/65.7 54/51.9 27/37.0 85/71.8 53/51.6 34/41.5 77/65.2 57/53.8 33/40.7 85/72.2 57/53.6 31/39.4 87/73.4 65/58.2 47/48.2 81/68.1 99/99.0 54/51.9 37/42.8 71/61.6 88/74.7 63/57.2 46/47.8 78 '66.5 99/99.0 65/58.2 46/4 3.0 82/69.4 91/78.2 64/57.3 44/46.7 80/67.8 99/99.0 54/57.5 43/46.1 82/69.0 99/99.0 I Data by race for grade 4 is u.'.available at this time. This information will be prov- ied at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are cowl ined and reflect.ad as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nLITTL, ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL P \"ICENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 1 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 25/35.5 25/35.5 25/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 2 TOTAL B W O 63 60 3 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 3 TOTAL B W O 60 55 5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/47.3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 39 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.6 31/39.4 24/34.9 18/30.9 28/37.8 26/36.1 23/34.1 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2 Data by race for grade 4 is uiavailable at this time. At Grad 3 1 and 2 the S,.^Et\nCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives This information will be provi '.ed at a later te. are con ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLl rock SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 71 34 36 45/47.5 27/37.1 64/57.8 45/47.2 25/35.7 66/58.8 47/48.4 24/35.0 71/61.7 37/43.2 19/31. 8 58/54.2 46/48.1 25/35.5 69/50.6 40/44.8 18/31.0 65/58.6 2 TOTAL B W 0 80 35 40 4 56/53.0 37/43.2 72/62.2 43/46.0 64/57.5 49/49.2 74/63.7 71/61.4 58/54.4 44/46.6 71/61.7 41/45.1 49/49.7 37/42.8 61/56.1 58/54.4 59/54.7 42/45.5 72/62.3 51/50.3 60/55.5 41/45.1 75/64.4 52/51.1 3 TOTAL B W O 68 25 42 1 56/53.0 28/38.0 72/62.0 47/48.4 73/63.1 48/48.8 85/71.5 85/71.8 61/56.1 40/44.8 73/63.1 36/42.5 60/55.1 27/37.3 77/65.3 85/71.8 59/54.9 33/40.9 74/63.4 43/46.3 65/57.9 39/43.9 78/66.2 60/55.3 63/57.2 35/41.8 78/66.4 60/55.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 63 73 37 35 1 72 26 45 1 57/53.7 61/55.9 51/50.5 55/52.6 55/52.5 56/53.4 56/53.0 39/44.0 23/34.1 59/54.8 77/65.6 64/57.6 35/41.7 78/66.0 98/93.3 52/51.2 41/45.1 62/56.6 99/99.0 65/58.0 42/45.9 75/64.0 99/99.0 48/48.9 34/41.0 63/56.8 98/93.3 49/49.3 27/37.3 70/60.9 99/99.0 47/48.2 33/40.7 60/55.4 93/81.1 46/47.6 31/39.4 60/55.3 93/81.1 46/47.6 29/38.5 61/56.1 96/86.9 1 1 I 62/56.4 38/43.3 73/63.1 97/89.6 67/59.2 44/46.7 77/65.6 99/99.0 71/61.9 53/51.4 80/67.4 96/86.9 64/57.7 39/44.3 76/64.6 98/93.3 66/58.5 40/44.5 78/65.9 98/93.3 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STAl^FORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: GARLAND ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 42/45.5 42/45.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 29/38.5 29/38.5 20/32.1 20/32.1 35/41.9 35/41.9 26/36.1 26/36.1 2 TOTAL B W O 29 26' 3 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/40.3 29/38.4 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/34.5 48/48.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/34.1 58/54.2 3 TOTAL B W O 28 '28 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 24/35.0 24/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 31 35 35 42 42 23/34.1 23/34.3 23/34.3 27/37.2 27/37..? 39/44.3 38/43.8 38/43.8 43/46.4 43/46.4 29/38.1 26/36.7 34/41.5 28/37.7 26/36.4 32/40.0 32/40.0 39/44.3 39/44.3 3C/38.7 39/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/43.9 39/43.9 47/48.5 47/48.5 39/43.9 39/43.9 38/43.5 38/43.5  Data by race for grade 4 is v. vailable at tfiis time. This information will be profiled at a.later Jate. **At Grac\n1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are cor Ined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 43 22 21 26 18 8 25 19 6 24 42 29 13 31 26 5 32/40.1 30/38.7 35/41.8 35/42.1 31/39.5 46/47.8 25/35.5 27/37.3 17/29.8 31/39.6 30/39.2 22/33.4 54/52.0 33/40.6 31/39.6 42/45.5 55/52.6 49/49.4 62/56.2 64/57.6 57/53.6 79/66.8 54/52.0 53/51.5 57/53.8 44/46.9 41/45.0 34/41.4 55/52.8 57/53.7 56/53.2 63/56.7 41/45.3 39/44.1 44/46.6 46/47.7 39/44.1 61/55.9 36/42.6 36/42.5 37/42.8 41/45.2 38/43.6 32/39.9 54/51.9 40/44.7 40/44.5 42/45.6 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 28/37.7 27/37.2 29/38.2 56/53.4 44/47.0 80/67.9 32/40.4 31/39.4 38/43.4 31/39.3 30/39.1 32/40.0 29/38.5 35/41.6 30/39.0 24/35.4 45/47.1 35/41.6 32/40.1 40/44.8 43/46.2 37/42.9 49/49.6 32/39.9 26/36.6 38/43.4 45/47.5 45/47.2 48/49.0 4 3/46.4 43/46.0 47/48.4 46/47.9 39/44.3 61/56.0 47/48.6 40/44.6 64/57.7 36/42.3 36/42.6 34/41.4 36/42.5 34/41.0 26/36.4 52/51.0 46/47.8 45/47.5 49/49.4 33/40.5 33/40.7 32/39.9 33/40.6 32/40.0 25/35.7 49/49.7 44/46.9 43/46.5 48/48.7 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH ANd' EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 GIBBS MAGNET ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 45 27 18 43 20 22 1 38, 22 16 46 69 37 31 1 44 20 24 52/51.1 41/45.3 68/59.8 52/51.0 42/45.6 67/59.2 45/47.2 31/39.6 66/58.5 45/47.2 27/37.2 72/62.1 52/51.0 39/44.2 70/61.3 49/49.4 36/42.5 68/59.8 64/57.5 45/47.5 79/66.8 55/52.6 79/66.9 62/56.6 90/76.6 72/62.3 67/59.0 47/48.3 83/70.3 11/24.2 63/57.2 48/48.7 75/64.2 87/73.7 70/61.0 52/51.1 83/70.4 58/54.2 71/61.6 53/51.3 84/71.3 63/57.0 59/54.9 46/47.7 77/65.4 82/69.2 69/60.4 94/81.8 68/60.0 55/52.7 84/70.5 68/59.8 50/50.0 87/73.3 74/63.2 59/55.0 88/74.5 72/62.2 58/54.3 86/73.0 72/62.4 57/53.9 88/74.2 63/56.7 80/67.5 57/53.8 63/56.9 70/61.1 67/59.0 67/59.2 62/56.4 39/43.9 84/70.5 89/75.8 72/62.5 48/48.8 91/77.9 97/89.6 62/56.5 47/48.5 77/65.8 82/69.3 65/58.1 33/40.6 91/78.1 93/81.1 69, ,0.3 46/47.8 87/74.0 99/99.0 66/58.5 42/45.8 86/72.8 94/82.7 67/59.0 40/44.9 88/75.0 96/86.9 72/62.0 41/45.0 89/76.1 72/62.4 53/51.6 85/71.4 61/55.8 43/46.2 74/63.8 68/60.0 46/48.1 83/70.0 76/64.9 55/52.6 88/75.1 72/62.1 49/49.4 86/72.7 72/62.4 48/49.0 87/73.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are contb.Mied and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRCT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAIl'ATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGIKH EDITION NATIONAL PMCENTILE RANK,/NORMAL CURVE EQUI'CALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ISH ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 37 37 29/38.6 29/38.6 28/37.8 28/37.8 31/39.6 31/39.6 33/40.5 33/40.5 28/37.6 28/37.6 25/35.6 25/35.6 2 TOTAL B W 0 28 26 2 33/40.5 34/41.0 21/33.1 49/49.5 46/48.0 81/68.8 56/53.0 55/52.8 61/55.7 61/56.1 59/55.0 83/70.4 45/47.3 45/47.3 46/47.8 43/46.2 43/46.0 49/49.3 3 TOTAL B W O 16 16 17/29.9 17/29.9 37/43.0 37/43.0 40/44.7 40/44.7 26/36.3 26/36.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 33/40.7 33/40.7 31/39.4 31/39.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 20 29 28 1 14 14 32/40.2 57/53.5 35/41.9 29/38.1 43/46.3 41/45.0 38/43.5 24/35.3 25/35.5 14/27.2 31/39.4 31/39.4 * Data by race for grade 4 is r This information will be prov 42/45.8 43/46.2 23/34.4 41/45.3 42/45.5 32/40.1 32/40.1 32/40.4 16/29.1 36/42.4 36/42.5 32/40.1 33/40.6 33/40.9 21/33.0 31/39.8 32/40.1 20/32.3 - 62/56.3 62/56.3 36/42.5 36/42.5 vailable at th..\ntime, 'ed at a later date. 42/45.7 42/45.7 49/+9.3 49/49.3 46/47.7 46/47.7 44/46.8 44/46.8 At Grad are coir.  1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives ned and reflect.d as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTL: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES 'PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 67 26 40 53/51.5 25/35.9 71/61.5 64/57.6 34/41.1 81/68.4 53/51.6 27/37.0 71/61.7 55/52.6 21/33.0 76/65.0 58/54.3 28/37.7 76/65.0 54/52.0 21/33.3 75/64.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 64 26 35 3 48/49.0 23/34.1 57/59.4 63/56.9 69/60.5 38/43.8 85/71.9 91/77.9 53/51.8 29/38.2 72/62.2 56/53.0 57/53.9 28/38.0 76/64.8 82/69.3 57/53.5 28/37.9 75/64.5 69/60.6 58/54.1 28/37.4 77/65.7 72/62.5 3 TOTAL B W O 70 30 39 1 56/53.1 40/44.5 69/60.5 12/25.3 70/61.3 56/53.3 81/68.2 14/27.2 59/54.9 51/50.4 67/59.3 5/15.4 67/59.5 42/45.9 84/70.7 18/30.7 69/60.4 51/50.4 81/68.8 22/33.7 62/56.2 47/48.3 73/63.1 10/23.0 63/56.8 46/47.7 76/64.7 9/21.8 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 70 63 26 37 53 22 31 59/54.7 64/57.8 59/54.7 57/53.7 59/54.6 59/54.6 58/54.3 60/55.4 26/36.1 82/69.4 71/61.9 42/45.7 87/73.4 70/60.8 51/50.3 81/68.4 82/69.5 65/58.0 91/77.7 69/60.4 45/47.5 83/69.7 70/61.0 54/52.3 79/67.1 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 69/60.2 33/40.7 88/74.4 74/63.5 48/49.1 87/73.8 82/69.6 55/52.6 94/82.0 64/57.4 36/42.5 80/67.9 68/60.1 37/43.0 85/72.1 82/69.3 62/56.3 91/78.5 78/66.0 56/53.1 88/75.2 79/67.1 56/52.9 90/77.2 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are coral Hied and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 I 1 TOTAL B W 0 71 35 34 1 36/42.4 26/36.5 47/48.3 80/67.7 34/41.5 26/36.3 44/46.7 44/46.8 43/46.3 36/42.5 50/49.9 74/63.5 37/42.8 27/37.3 48/49.1 54/52.1 33/43.7 32/40.0 45/47.2 76/64 .9 31/39.8 24/34.8 40/44.6 74/63.5 2 TOTAL B W O 75 43 32 37/42.8 26/36.5 53/51.4 49/49.6 39/44.2 63/56.8 42/45.5 33/40.7 54/51.9 34/41.3 23/34.5 51/50.4 39/44.1 30/39.2 51/50.7 37/42.8 27/36.8 52/50.9 3 TOTAL B W O 60 34 25 1 32/39.9 21/33.2 48/48.7 72/62.3 48/48.9 38/43.3 60/55.5 95/84.6 42/45.9 32/39.9 57/53.9 80/67.7 33/40.7 25/35.9 45/47.1 56/53.2 38/43.3 30/38.9 48/49.1 62/56.4 39/44.3 28/37.9 55/52.4 85/71.8 38/43.8 28/37.6 52/51.0 83/70.1 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 66 62 36 26 69 44 23 2 35/42.1 48/48.7 36/42.6 37/42.8 39/44.3 38/43.4 36/42.3 35/41.7 27/37.0 46/48.1 41/45.2 37/42.9 47/48.5 52/51.2 47/48.3 60/55.3 42/45.7 31/39.4 59/54.5 41/45.3 34/41.3 51/50.7 38/43.6 31/39.7 48/48.9 38/43.3 30/38.8 49/49.5 36/42.3 29/38.5 49/49.6 45/47.4 45/47.1 38/43.3 56/53.3 66/58.4 41/45.3 34/41.1 56/53.3 47/48.2 50/50.2 45/47.3 59/54.6 73/63.0 45/47.1 42/45.9 47/48.4 64/57.4 41/45.4 35/41.8 53/51.5 58/54.0 41/45.2 35/41.8 52/51.0 60/55.2 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AiD EVALUATION STAMFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 72 41 28 3 57/53.8 36/42.7 80/68.0 90/76.7 64/57.5 48/49.0 80/67.9 93/81.7 56/53.3 37/42.8 79/66.8 91/78.5 53/51.4 33/40.8 76/64.6 90/77.3 61/56.1 41/45.0 83/70.0 92/79.0 59/54.6 35/41.9 84/70.5 91/78.7 2 TOTAL B W O 68 36 32 52/50.9 35/42.0 70/60.9 75/64.2 56/53.1 90/77.1 64/57.3 46/47.9 81/68.1 55/52.4 37/43.1 73/62.8 61/55.9 41/45.1 80/68.0 61/56.1 40/44.7 82/69.1 3 TOTAL B W O 60 28 31 1 60/55.2 46/48.0 71/61.9 58/54.2 74/63.6 64/57.4 83/69.8 56/53.2 66/58.7 53/51.3 78/65.9 43/46.3 60/55.5 42/45.9 75/64.1 81/68.5 65/58.3 49/49.6 79/66.8 66/58.7 69/60.5 56/53.1 80/67.4 58/54.2 69/60.5 54/52.2 81/68.2 62/56.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 66 57/53.5 66/58.9 52/50.8 52/51.1 51/50.6 58/54.2 56/53.1 5 TOTAL B W O 74 40 34 49/49.5 32/39.9 71/61.5 56/53.4 46/47.9 69/60.2 56/52.9 45/47.2 68/59.9 52/51.2 39/44.0 58/59.8 51/50.6 41/45.3 63/57.0 53/51.5 40/44.6 67/59.5 53/51.4 40/44.4 68/59.7 6 TOTAL B W 0 63 44 16 3 47/48.2 39/43.9 71/61.8 32/40.1 I 56/53.4 51/50.3 68/60.0 74/63.7 45/47.1 39/44.2 58/54.4 54/52.3 48/49.1 39/44.2 66/58.7 84/70.5 52/50.8 46/48.0 64/57.5 64/57.3 51/50.7 45/47.3 67/59.5 60/55.2 50/50.1 43/46.4 67/59.4 63/56.7 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at thi2 time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 71 45 25 62 40 22 55 37 18 58 47 27 20 46 34 12 35/42.1 28/37.5 51/50.6 39/44.2 34/41.5 50/50.0 27/37.3 23/34.4 38/43.6 25/35.9 19/31.2 41/45.2 35/41.8 28/37.7 49/49.5 31/39.8 26/36.3 44/46.7 32/40.0 25/35.7 46/48.1 28/38.0 25/35.8 36/42.6 34/41.1 32/40.2 18/30.6 56/53.2 49/49.5 41/45.3 71/61.4 49/49.4 47/48.5 52/50.9 37/43.2 32/40.2 48/48.7 27/36.8 23/34.3 34/41.3 37/43.1 31/39.7 49/49.3 34/41.4 28/37.4 47/48.6 40/44.6 37/43.1 46/48.0 38/43.5 37/43.2 39/44.1 28/37.8 25/35.6 36/42.5 30/39.0 28/38.0 34/41.2 34/41.2 31/39.8 39/44.1 31/39.7 29/38.1 37/42.8 43/46.3 34/41.1 21/32.7 54/52.3 52/51.0 49/49.6 60/55.1 36/42.7 46/47.6 44/4b.7 37/43.2 37/43.1 43/46.5 28/37.6 66/58.5 46/47.6 41/45.1 59/54.8 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 36/42.6 18/30.6 66/58.8 50/49.9 43/46.4 68/60.0 35/42.0 24/34.9 53/51.6 34/41.3 20/32.6 56/53.1 33/40.6 19/31.3 56/53.3 63/56.8 54/52.2 83/70.0 51/50.3 46/47.8 64/57.4 51/50.7 46/47.7 67/59.2 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: GRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAIVATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 MITCHELL ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 40 38 2 43 41 2 39, 35 3 1 41 24 23 1 38 38 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 27/37.1 25/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 37/42.8 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 30.38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36.5 25/35.9 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at th..s time. This information will be provided at a later date. 2 i/32.9 20/31.9 55/52.6 31/39.5 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3 25/35.6 49/49.4 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/45.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 26/36.7 29/38.2 35/41.6 -) 4/41.0 66/58.7 50/-.9.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 29/38.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 29/38.2 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 36/42.6 36/42.6 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 26/36.7 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 36/42.2 36/42.2 J At Grad 1 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com'Aned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 65 34 31 46 15 31 48. 2'1 26 1 49 46 25 21 52 23 28 1 56/52.9 44/46.7 67/59.4 56/53.2 34/41.2 78/65.9 47/48.6 29/38.5 67/59.4 38/43.5 22/33.7 58/54.2 59/54.6 42/45.7 75/64.0 54/51.9 38/43.3 70/61.3 49/49.3 31/39.8 58/54.3 72/62.3 44/47.0 83/70.0 57/53.6 39/44.0 66/58.4 53/51.5 25/35.9 66/58.8 56/53.2 32/40.4 67/59.5 57/53.6 30/39.2 69/60.6 54/52.0 35/41.7 69/60.7 40/44.7 71/61.9 51/50.3 85/71.4 68/59.9 65/57.9 44/47.0 79/66.9 51/50.5 48/48.8 32/40.4 61/55.9 31/39.6 54/52.2 37/43.1 68/59.9 40/44.7 64/57.3 43/46.2 78/66.4 58/54.2 60/55.5 39/44.3 76/64.8 52/51.1 55/52.4 63/57.0 60/55.2 53/51.6 57/53.8 57/53.6 56/53.2 38/43.4 24/34.9 57/53.5 67/59.2 53/51.5 81/68.5 61/55.9 44/46.7 79/67.0 49/49.4 36/42.3 64/57.7 52/70.9 41/45.0 65/58.0 53/51.5 38/43.8 69/60.6 52/51.2 37/43.1 69/60.7 63/57.0 35/42.0 82/69.5 48/48.9 72/62.2 49/49.2 86/73.1 62/56.4 58/54.1 32/40.4 77/65.3 56/53.2 64/57.8 41/45.0 81/68.5 54/52.1 I 66/58.9 41/45.0 84/70.6 49/49.5 66/58.4 40/44.5 83/70.2 48/48.9 66 /58.7 39/44.1 84/71.1 48/48.9 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflec i as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHxEVEHENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE S^'LENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 71 37 32 2 32/40.1 16/29.1 58/54.0 20/32.0 49/49.5 26/36.5 74/63.8 80/67.8 49/49.6 26/36.7 74/63.7 80/67.4 45/47.2 20/32.4 76/65.0 39/44.3 41/45.0 20/31.9 68/59.8 48/48.9 42/45.5 18/30.5 73/62.8 42/45.6 2 TOTAL B W O 46 20 25 1 46/47.9 20/32.5 68/59.9 58/54.2 70/60.8 46/47.7 83/69.7 99/99.0 53/51.7 33/40.9 69/60.3 52/51.1 52/50.8 29/38.1 71/61.6 28/37.7 54/52.1 28/37.7 74/63.2 72/62.3 55/52.8 27/36.9 76/65.1 70/61.0 3 TOTAL B W O 41, 19 21 1 50/49.9 28/37.8 68/59.6 88/74.7 71/61.8 49/49.5 85/72.0 92/79.6 64/57.6 45/47.3 78/65.9 93/81.1 60/55.3 39/44.0 77/65.4 69/60.4 57/53.5 40/44.7 70/61.0 72/62.3 63/56.8 41/45.1 78/66.5 90/77.0 62/56.3 39/44.0 78/66.4 38/74.7 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 47 41 22 18 1 33 21 12 48/49.1 57/53.8 42/45.5 46/47.8 49/49.5 49/49.2 47/48.5 37/43.2 21/33.1 59/54.7 66/58.7 37/42.8 28/37.5 54/52.1 55/52.4 42/45.5 65/58.2 99/99.0 49/49.4 38/43.5 62/56.2 65/58.1 44/46.6 25/35.7 65/58.2 90/77.0 47/48.5 34/''.0 62/j6.4 83/70.1 44/47.0 31/39.3 59/55.0 84/70.9 44/46.9 28/38.0 62/56.2 88/74.7 35/41.6 26/36.6 51/50.5 40/44.9 30/38.7 61/55.8 38/43.8 30/39.0 54/52.1 47/48.6 41/45.3 59/54.5 37/43.0 28/37.7 54/52.1 36/42.7 28/37.5 54/51.9 Data by race for grade 4 is vailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PEt'CENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 39 38 43/46.2 43/46.5 46/47.9 46/48.0 32/40.4 33/40.8 25/35.9 26/36.2 40/44.7 41/45.0 39/44.0 40/44.4 2 TOTAL B W 0 33 32 45/47.1 45/47.2 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/58.7 66/58.7 44/46.9 45/47.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/54.1 58/54.1 3 TOTAL B W O 3,8 37 1 4 TOTAL * B W 0 33 32/40.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 45/48.1 45/47.1 95/84.6 53/51.6 42/45.7 41/45.0 84/70.9 37/42.8 24/35.2 23/34.7 56/53.2 2//35.1 30/38.8 29/38.4 55/52.6 31/39.4 38/43.8 38/43.3 75/64.2 36/42.4 34/41.5 34/41.0 73/62.9 32/40.1 5 TOTAL B W 0 42 42 21/33.1 21/33.1 40/44.7 40/44.7 37/43.1 37/43.1 26/37.9 z 7737.9 37/43.2 37/43.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 29/38.4 29/38.4 6 TOTAL B W 0 1 33 33 34/41.0 34/41.0 49/49.5 49/49.5 42/45.6 42/45.6 26/42.3 -3/42.3 41/45.2 41/45.2 43/46.0 43/46.0 40/44.6 40/44.6 * Data by race for grade 4 is ur',vailable at thij time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are com)' led and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 62 41 20 1 42/45.8 37/43.0 52/51.0 64/57.5 50/50.1 45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51/50.3 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40.8 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 2 TOTAL B W 0 41 29 10 2 28/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 3 TOTAL B W O 39 2'6 12 1 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 38 38 32 5 1 36 27 9 29/38.4 38/43.4 25/35.6 26/36.7 31/39.3 28/37.8 26/36.3 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL\nGRADE/RACE 1 TOTAL B W 0 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAI.OATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 ROMINE ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 46 40 6 49 47 2 44 38 6 45 36 32 4 40 35 4 1 39/44.3 37/43.0 55/52.8 63/57.1 62/56.2 73/62.7 47/48.3 45/47.5 58/54.3 44/46.7 41/45.3 61/56.0 49/49.4 46/48.1 66/58.6 49/49.3 47/48.2 63/56.8 19/31.3 19/31.2 22/33.4 32/40.0 29/38.6 49/49.4 39/44.1 41/45.2 40/44.9 45/47.2 40/44.4 36/42.5 73/62.8 23/34.4 33/40.8 34/41.5 11/24.0 34/41.3 34/41.4 30/39.2 29/38.2 28/37.4 62/56.4 27/36.8 27/37.1 16/29.4 25/36.0 26/36.3 16/29.4 49/49.3 50/50.1 39/44.3 47/48.4 47/48.5 46/47.7 40/44.7 39/44.0 48/49.0 42/45.8 42/45.9 40/44.7 42/45.5 41/45.4 43/46.1 40/44.6 40/44.4 42/45.7 53/51.8 43/46.0 42/45.7 48/48.8 47/48.6 45/47.1 78/66.5 17/29.9 46/47.7 45/47.3 45/47.2 48/48.7 40/44.6 40/44.6 52/51.0 3/20.4 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 38/43.7 37/42.9 45/47.2 41/45.4 I 40/44.9 41/45.0 39/44.1 38/43.5 36/42.7 50/50.0 40/44.7 40/44.5 42/45.7 39/43.9 38/43.7 42/45.6 43/46.2 40/44.5 74/63.3 32/40.1 59/54.9 55/52.7 90/77.0 35/41.9 43/46.4 40/44.9 72/62.5 19/31.5 44/46.8 41/45.2 76/64.7 20/32.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SC EHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are conC'ned and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 38 37 1 22/33.8 22/33.8 23/34.4 42/45.5 41/45.4 52/51.1 35/41.8 35/41.6 53/51.6 23/34.5 23/34.7 14/27.2 31/39.6 31/39.6 35/41.9 24/35.3 24/35.2 25/35.8 2 TOTAL B W O 32 32 27/37.3 27/37.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 33/40.5 33/40.5 24/35.2 24/35.2 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 3 TOTAL B W O V 21 20/32.6 20/32.6 43/46.1 43/46.1 35/42.0 35/42.0 29/38.5 29/38.5 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 4 TOTAL 2 24/35.4 34/41.4 38/43.6 27/36.8 35/41.9 49/49.7 47/48.3 * B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 39 39 17/30.2 17/30.2 35/42.0 35/42.0 34/41.3 34/41.3 32/40.4 32/40.4 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 6 TOTAL B W 0 30 28 1 1 33/40.9 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/82.7 99/99.0 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/36.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 76/64.9 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.3 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTL\n. ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 TERRY ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 67 26 37 4 63/57.1 51/50.6 69/60.7 79/67.2 68/60.1 48/48.8 81/68.6 75/64.0 51/50.7 36/42.7 62/56.6 61/56.0 50/50.2 3 '43.3 62/56.6 34/41.3 65/58.1 49/49.3 74/63.6 75/64.0 61/55.6 43/46.2 71/61.6 69/60.7 2 TOTAL B W 0 68 28 39 1 47/48.3 27/37.3 59/54.9 97/89.6 67/59.2 49/49.7 76/64.9 99/99.0 59/55.0 40/44.8 70/61.2 99/99.0 46/48.0 33/40.8 54/52.2 95/84.6 55/52.6 35/41.7 67/59.2 99/99.0 54/52.2 33/40.8 67/59.3 99/99.0 3 TOTAL B W 0 73 33 39 63/56.8 44/46.8 78/65.9 70/61.3 56/53.2 81/68.7 70/61.1 56/53.1 81/68.2 62/56.6 46/47.9 75/64.5 66/58.9 49/49.3 80/67.6 68/60.0 52/50.8 81/68.3 68/59.9 50/50.0 82/69.0 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W 0 6 TOTAL B W 0 79 78 45 32 1 74 34 37 3 53/51.8 66/58.4 54/51.9 47/48.5 54/52.2 56/53.2 54/52.1 45/47.3 30/38.8 68/59.9 11/24.2 47/48.3 36/42.7 63/56.9 12/25.3 47/48.2 34/41.4 65/58.2 24/35.1 47/48.5 32/40.4 69/60.6 15/28.2 48/n9.0 38/43.7 63/57.2 18/30.7 46/47.7 32/40.4 66/58.6 11/24.2 46/47.6 31/39.8 67/59.3 9/21.8 67/59.0 50/50.0 79/67.3 67/59.2 74/63.7 65/58.0 82/69.1 70/60.8 63/57.2 51/50.7 73/62.8 71/61.4 73/61.4 54/52.0 84/70.6 61/55.8 70/60.8 52/50.9 84/70.5 56/53.4 i 71/61.4 59/54.6 80/68.0 64/57.7 71/61.7 57/53.9 82/69.3 63/57.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 71 55 16 1 31/39.5 31/39.3 32/40.3 29/38.3 29/38.6 27/36.8 41/45.0 -0- 24 /34 .8 23/34 .3 28/37.5 8/20.4 17/30.0 16/28.8 23/34 .7 7/18.9 28/37.6 26/36.5 34/41.4 -0- 21/32.9 18/30.5 33/40.8 -0- 2 TOTAL B W O 58 33 23 2 34/41.0 23/34 .4 46/48.1 80/-67.9 48/48.9 38/43.3 57/53.8 94/82.6 38/43.8 31/39.7 46/47.9 72/62.0 32/40.0 23/34.6 43/46.4 52/51 . 0 37/43.0 27/37.3 47/48.4 89/75.3 36/42.6 26/36.4 48/48.7 88/74 .5 3 TOTAL B W O 64 39 25 34/41.1 28/37.6 44/46.7 46/47.7 40/44 .4 56/53.0 41/45.4 32/40.0 57/53.7 34/41.0 27/37.3 44/46.8 38/43.3 31/39.4 49/49.3 39/44.3 33/40.5 50/50.2 37/43.0 30/38.9 49/49.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 63 39/44 .3 50/50.0 46/47.8 42/45.6 46/47.7 43/46.3 42/45.7 5 TOTAL B W O 66 52 13 1 25/35.9 1''/31.7 53/51.7 45/47.4 34/41.2 27/37.2 60/55.1 83/70.1 35/41.6 28/37.9 61/55.6 57/53.7 32/40.3 26/36.1 60/55.3 70/61.0 33/40.9 30/38.7 48/48.9 49/49.5 29/38.3 23/34 . 1 56/53.2 70/61.0 28/37.8 22/33.5 56/53.2 68/59.9 6 TOTAL B W O 78 56 20 2 37/42.9 32/40.2 49/49.3 54/52.0 49/49.3 44/46.6 60/55.2 74/63.6 46/47.7 37/42.8 68/59.6 66/58.7 45/47.4 37/43.2 64/57.6 71/61.8 49/49.5 43/46.0 66/58.8 58/54.2 43/46.4 38/43.3 58/54.0 64/57.6 43/46.2 36/42.7 59/55.0 63/57.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANF/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WASHINGTON MAGNET ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 1 TOTAL B W 0 ? TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 152 98 53 1 124 71 49 4 10 2 5'6 46 111 95 53 4 1 1 89 51 37 1 49/49.7 35/41.8 75/64 . 2 80/67.7 65/58.0 52/50.9 84/71.2 94/82.7 61/55.7 43/46.3 86/73.0 99/99.0 57/53.5 45/47.4 76/65.1 83/70.1 * X 59/54.9 43/46.2 84/70.5 91/78.2 55/52.8 38/43.6 82/69 . 3 91/78.2 41/45.3 25/35.7 65/58.3 6 1 /-5 5 . 8 70/60.8 48/48.8 90/77.4 85/71.8 60/55.4 38/43.3 86/72.6 66/58.7 52/51.1 29/38.4 80/67.6 87/73.3 51/50.6 29/38.6 79/67.0 72/62.0 52/51.2 29/38.5 81/68.6 75/64 .5 38/43.7 17/30.1 68/59.8 50/49.9 35/41.8 17/30. 1 63/57.0 51/50.5 51/50.6 30/39.0 78/65.9 86/72.8 55/52.8 36/42.5 77/65.3 63/56.7 63/57 . 1 48/49.0 80/67.4 86/72.8 63/57.1 50/49.8 79/66.7 90/77.0 47/48.5 27/36.8 73/62.8 47/48.6 46/48.1 31/39.8 66/58.5 72/62.3 53/51.6 39/44 .3 70/61.0 91/78.2 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 44/46.8 23/34 .7 71/61.5 45/47.2 24/35.0 72/62.0 46/47.7 25/35.6 72/62.5 44/46.7 22/34.0 72/62.0 52/50.8 50/50.0 30/39.1 74 '63.5 95/84 .6 60/55.3 40/44.4 82/69.2 99/99.0 55/52.4 52/51.0 51/50.5 46/47.7 31/39.6 65/58.0 66/58.7 59/54 . 5 43/46.4 76/64.9 89/75.8 46/47.9 29/38.4 68/59.9 65/58.1 56/53.0 39/44 . 1 76/64 .7 90/77.0 46/47.9 28/37.6 70/60.9 71/61.7 56/53.4 38/43.5 78/66.2 94/82.7 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WATSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 64 47 17 27/37.0 24/34.9 37/42.8 33/40.5 30/38.9 41/45.2 23/34.1 20/32.4 30/38.8 23/34.4 20/32.5 32/40.1 27/36.9 23/34.3 39/44.0 24/35.4 22/33.7 32/40.3 2 TOTAL B W O 48 37 9 34/41.4 30/38.8 55/52.4 46/47.6 43/46.1 59/54.5 44/4' . 6 38/43.5 66/58.7 31/39.5 24/35.1 61/56.0 40/44.6 36/42. 62/56.2 39/44.0 34/41.3 64/57.3 3 TOTAL B N O 44 29 15 24/35.2 15/27.7 48/48.8 47/48.2 35/41.7 69/60.4 31/39.4 21/32.7 54/52.0 33/40.7 20/32.6 61/55.0 33/40.5 25/35.9 49/49.2 33/40.9 22/33.8 59/54.5 31/39.7 20/32.2 58/54.3 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 65 55 42 12 1 69 43 25 38/43.3 46/48.1 40/44.6 48/49.0 44/47.0 40/44.6 40/44.4 I 39/43.9 40/44.4 37/43.1 18/30.7 52/51.1 38/43.8 73/62.8 58/54.1 57/53.6 62/56.6 39/44.1 58/54.3 47/48.5 74/63.4 48/49.1 47/48.6 53/51.8 26/36.5 50/49.8 41/45.2 64/57.3 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 45/47.3 46/47.9 44/46.8 16/29.1 47/48.6 36/42.3 67/59.2 44/4 6.9 4 7.0 44/47.0 35/41.9 46/47.7 46/48.0 46/47.8 24/35.1 45/47.2 46/47.6 44/46.9 23/34.4 53/51.6 43/46.0 70/61-.0 54/51.9 43/46.1 71/61.5 53/51.3 40/44.9 71/61.9 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCI2NCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** I GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY A 1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL \u0026gt;( B W 0 5 TOTAL B W o 6 TOTAL B W 0 44 24 20 44 25 17 1 45 '27 18 51 51 34 17 50 28 22 46/48.1 35/41.8 61/55.8 41/45.3 29/38.1 57/53.9 43/46.0 29/38.4 60/55.1 29/38.4 20/32.6 41/45.4 50/50.1 41/45.0 62/56.2 43/46.3 29/38.5 61/55.7 45/47.1 34/41.5 57/53.9 54/5-2.1 46/47.6 33/40.7 64/57.8 35/41.9 35/41.8 26/36.2 56/52.9 60/55.1 46/47.8 75/64.4 65/58.1 56/53.0 81/68.4 63/57.0 63/56.7 50/50.1 81/68.1 81/68.5 47/48.2 34/41.0 67/59.3 68/59.9 52/51.1 41/45.4 71/61.7 60/55.3 52/51.0 40/44.8 72/62.2 63/57.0 69/60.6 59/54.9 82/69.2 53/51.6 39/44.3 73/62.7 44/46.7 33/40.7 61/55.6 42/45.6 34/41.2 54/52.3 57/53.6 44/47.0 74/63.5 53/51.5 40/44.7 71/61.8 54/52.0 37/42.9 38/43.5 39/44.1 41/45.0 39/43.9 53/51.8 45/47.3 69/60.7 45/47.2 36/42.6 62/56.4 41/45.0 30/38.9 63/57.2 45/47.4 36/42.6 63/56.9 41/45.1 32/40.2 59/54.9 40/44.7 31/39.4 60/55.4 60/55.2 55/52.5 65/58.6 56/53.0 49/49.4 64/57.6 61/55.9 52/50.9 72/52.4 64/57.8 53/51.6 77/65.7 60/55.4 52/50.9 70/61.0 60/55.5 51/50.4 72/62.0 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WILLIAMS MAGNET ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY  1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W 0 3 TOTAL B W o 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 65 38 25 2 65 35 29 1 60 33 27 68 89 47 4 1 1 69 40 29 82/69.5 74/63.5 91/77.8 92/79.4 69/60.3 54/52.1 82/69.6 9 0 /-7 7.0 68/60.0 56/53.2 81/68.3 70/60.8 63/56.9 46/48.1 78/66.1 98/93.3 81/68.2 76/64.7 86/73 . 1 82/69.0 76/64.8 89/75.5 82/69.0 76/64 .7 68/59.7 85/71.4 88/75.2 62/56.4 48/48.7 81/68.3 61/55.9 83/69.9 75/64.5 90/77.3 91/78.8 80/67.8 72/62.1 89/75.9 90/76.6 82/69.6 76/64 . 6 88/74 .8 98/93.3 83/69.8 77/65.2 89/75.3 81/68.7 81/68.6 69/60.3 90/77.3 99/99.0 81/68.4 72/62.2 90/76.9 81/68.2 71/61.5 89/76.0 92/79.6 78/65.9 74/63.4 82/69.1 72/62.0 70/61.3 59/54.6 81/68.5 92/79.6 75/63.9 70/61.1 80/67.8 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. 81/68.6 72/62.3 90/76.6 62/56.4 67/59.3 54/52.2 80/67.9 74/63.8 77/65.3 62/56.6 88/74.4 99/99.0 73/62.9 67/59.0 81/68.4 * * 74/63.7 64/57.7 84/71.0 69/60.6 71/61.9 59/54.6 82/69.3 99/99.0 80/68.0 76/64 .9 86/72.4 78/65.9 66/58.5 87/74.1 95/84.6 79/67.3 68/59.7 89/75.8 95/84.6 77/65.8 69/60.3 86/72.6 77/65.6 67/59.5 86/73.0 73/62.9 74/63.3 72/62.3 57/53.8 84/71.2 99/99.0 81/68.7 76/64.7 88/74.2 74/63.5 59/54 .5 86/72.9 99/99.0 82/69.0 76/64.9 88/74.6 **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEHCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.SCHOOL: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 WILSON ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 44 33 11 84/70.7 84/71.1 83/69.7 71/61.8 69/60.7 76/64.9 67/59.2 66/58.8 69/60.5 41/45.2 38/43.8 49/49.4 75/64.2 75/64.2 75/64.5 68/59.9 67/59.4 71/61.6 2 TOTAL B W O 63 36 27 52/50.9 47/48.4 58/54.2 69/60.2 67/59.2 71/61.5 56/52.9 51/50.3 62/56.5 41/45.2 39/43.9 44/46.9 58/54 .3 54/52.1 63/57.2 58/54.1 54/52.0 63/57.0 3 TOTAL B W O . 55 '4 0 13 2 37/43.2 35/41.7 46/47.8 36/42.6 55/52.5 51/50.7 61/56.0 74/63.4 49/49.3 45/47.5 56/53.2 71/61.4 40/44 .5 34/41.2 54/52.2 73/62.9 45/47.1 41/45.3 54/51.9 59/54.5 46/48.1 43/46.5 53/51.7 58/54.0 45/47.3 41/45.1 56/53.0 59/54 .8 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 45 48 42 6 42 32 10 35/42. 1 27/37.0 25/35.8 42/45.6 40/44.5 32/40.1 64/57.6 48/49.1 45/47.1 40/44 .8 36/42.2 41/45.1 38/43.7 39/44.2 38/43.4 49/49.7 55/52.8 54/52.3 58/54 . 3 34/41.0 32/40 . 1 44/47.0 42/45.6 39/44.0 51/50.5 Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be prov'ded at a later date. 31/39.6 31/39.5 33/40.7 37/43.1 33/40.9 51/50.4 32 /'iO . 1 32/ 10.1 31/39.8 49/49.4 45/47 . 1 63/57,1 32/40.1 30/39.2 43/46.4 46/48.0 43/46.4 55/52.8 30/39.1 29/38.4 39/44.1 44/47.0 41/45.1 56/53.3 *At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLr\nROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION SCHOOL: STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT** SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W O 22 13 9 35/41.6 22/33.5 56/53.4 37/43.2 24/34 .9 60/55.1 31/39.8 16/29.4 59/54.9 27/37.0 17/30.1 45/47.1 30/39.2 14/27.6 61/55.9 28/37.9 14/27.3 56/53.3 2 TOTAL B W 0 20 12 8 24/35.3 19/31.6 33/40.9 39/44 . 1 30/39 . 1 53/51.7 28/37.4 17/29.5 49/49.3 30/38.7 22/33.4 44/46.8 fr -k 31/39.7 26/36.6 40/44 .4 26/36.5 18/31.0 40/44.6 3 TOTAL B W 0 23 17 6 32/40 ..3 24/35.2 59/54.8 4 3/46.0 36/42.6 61/55.6 45/47.5 34/41.5 75/64.2 30/38.9 22/33.8 56/53.4 37/43.0 32/39.9 53/51.6 38/43.7 31/39.3 61/56.1 35/42.1 28/37.4 60/55.4 4 TOTAL * B W 0 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O 35 26 16 9 1 34 20 14 30/38.7 31/39.7 25/35.7 40/44.7 66/58.7 31/39.6 21/32.7 49/49.4 47/48.5 67/59.2 60/55.5 74/63.3 93/81.1 46/48 . 1 41/45.4 54/51.9 34/41.2 33/40.7 39/44.1 35/41.8 33/40.7 48/49.1 44/46.8 57/53.7 38/43.6 39/44.3 36/42.4 45/47.4 42/45.8 48/48.8 42/45.9 55/52.7 66/58.7 46/47.7 39/44.1 54/52.1 76/64 .9 45/47.2 38/43.6 54/52.0 73/62.9 40/44.4 29/38.6 55/52.8 40/44.7 33/40.5 51/50.7 49/49.5 42/45.5 60/55.3 39/44.0 31/39.7 50/50.0 38/43.7 30/39.2 50/50.2 * Data by race for grade 4 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date. **At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W 0 8 TOTAL B W 0 9 TOTAL B W 0 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, NATIONAl PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE 181 205 156 48 1 19 4 129 62 3 32/40.3 34/41.3 35/41.9 EIGHTH EDITION EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCIENCE 34/11.0 SOCIAL SCIENCE 36/42.3 BASIC BATTERY 35/42.1 COMPLETE BATTERY 35/41.6 34/41.4 28/37.9 55/52.7 84/70.9 30/38.7 25/35.9 45/47.1 99/99.0 40/44. 8 35/41.6 58/54.2 99/99.0 38/43.5 32/40.3 57/53.6 67/59.3 38/43.5 33/40.5 56/53.2 78/66.3 33/40.5 28/37.5 49/49.2 97/89.6 32/40. 1 27/36.8 49/49.7 97/89,6 36/42.6 30/38.8 52/51.1 23/34 . .3 27/37.0 22/33.5 39/43.9 35/4 2.1 47/48.3 40/44.8 61/55.9 37/42.8 41/45.2 36/42.6 52/50.8 31/39.4 41/45.3 35/42.1 54/52.0 38/43.8 39/44.0 33/40.6 53/51.3 36/42.4 39/44 . 1 33/40.7 53/51.4 35/41.6 * Data by race for grade 7 Is unavailable at this time. This information will be j covided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EV.'-LUATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W O 8 TOTAL B W o 9 TOTAL B W 0 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE SCHOOL: NUMBER TESTED 239 229 126 101 2 121 84 37 SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 DUNBAR MAGNET JR. HIGH TOTAL READING 55/52.8 53/51.8 38/43.3 72/62.1 86/72.6 34/41.1 24/34.8 61/56.1 TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE 59/54.9 54/52.2 EIGHTH EDITION EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 56/53.2 59/54.6 59/54.5 59/54.6 46/47.7 34/41.4 59/54.9 97/90.0 59/54.6 45/47.2 74/63.4 94/83.2 55/52.7 39/44.2 73/62.6 96/85.8 57/53.7 37/43.1 78/66.2 97/90.1 52/51.0 37/43.1 69/60.2 97/90.1 53/51.5 36/42.2 72/62.3 99/96.2 28/37.6 18/31.0 55/52.8 43/46.3 33/40.7 67/59.5 44/46.9 32/40.2 72/62.3 39/44.2 27/37.0 70/60.9 36/42.6 25/35.8 66/58.6 38/43.3 25/35.8 69/60.4 * Data by race for grade 7 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVAI,UATION GRADE/RACE * 7 TOTAL B W O 8 TOTAL B W O STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL: NUMBER TESTED 205 181 120 54 7 SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH TOTAL READING 46/48.1 32/39.9 21/32.8 63/56.8 66/58.7 TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY 47/48.4 47/48.3 42/45.9 51/50.4 50/50.2 50/49.9 9 TOTAL B W O 188 124 61 3 46/48.0 35/41.9 69/60.3 50/49.8 * 38/43.3 27/37.0 62/56.2 81/68.2 37/43.0 26/36.1 61/55.7 72/62.5 42/45.7 32/39.9 65/58.0 81/68.1 43/46.4 32/40.4 69/60.2 72/62.0 41/45.1 29/38.2 69/60.2 73/63.1 39/44.1 27/36.9 63/57.2 76/65.1 39/43.9 26/36.2 65/58.1 78/66.0 56/53.1 47/48.4 72/62.3 70/61.1 57/53.7 44/47.0 78/66.0 79/66.7 49/49.7 40/44.6 66/58.6 83/70.0 50/50.0 39/43.9 72/62.2 64/57.4 50/50.2 38/43.5 74/63.4 70/61.1 Data by race for grade 7 is unavailable at this time. This information will be provided at a later date.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 SCHOOL: HENPFRSON JR HIGH GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY * 7 TOTAL B W 0 216 31/39.3 40/44.9 34/41.0 33/40.9 36/42.5 38/43.7 37/43.0 8 TOTAL B W 0 199 162 33 4 34/41.3 27/37.0 67/59.3 90/76.6 39/44.2 34/41.3 58/54.1 95/83.9 42/45.8 35/41.7 72/62.0 94/82.8 39/44.0 32/40.4 65/58.1 92/79.1 42/45.8 35/41.7 70/61.3\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1510","title":"Testing: Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6), comparative data, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1988/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT-6), comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1510"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["118 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_208","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1987-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/208"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["63 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nOctober 15, 1987 TO: Board of Directors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation '5\"\"$ THROUGHD:r . George Cannon, Interim Superintenden~ SUBJECT: Enrollment Report - October 1, 1987 cc: Executive Staff TEL: TOTALE NROLLMENT Senior High School!! Central F-,ir H.!!ll McClel hn P~rkview Metropolit-,n TOTALH !GHS CHOOLS Junior High School, Clovcrdsle Ounbor Forest Heiohh Henderson Mabelvele Monn Pula~ki Heiahh Southwest TOTAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLK IND~RGARTEN: CP-ntral Fair '50  Hall McClellan 1\u0026lt;2''\u0026gt; l/f Parkview /' I 1{oe3.2)e ~i~ TOTAL ~ ENROLLMERNETP ORT October\" 1, 1987 ~WiE.!'il 26,853 2108 882 1449 1279 833 15 6566 678 682 862 1033 672 653 754 804 6138 White 2 :1 8 12 9. 32 Jan 14,94 , Black Otht'r 57 q 7 7 110 90 10:32 No.001 P.02 X BLACK 61 57 48 50 39 55 80 Sl 63 68 62 60 50 53 63 66 61 Total 59 10 15 19 19 :122 I f I \\ ..\\ i ! I j i y:,?: fF piO N f1.1 I ,\n::J It-/ ,(1-1 \n,i,3/51e .- f 21 fi)ull\\(3/ Eler,entary Schools Badgett 290 72 Bale 397 70 Baseline 448 71 Brady 423 65 Chicot 642 57 Cloverdale 408 64 Dodd 398 61 Fair Park 315 69 Fore::it Park 426 59 Franklin 403 72 Fulbright 503 57 Garland 329 85 Geyer Springs 235 66 Ish 214 81 Jefferson 462 56 King 269 81 Mabel vale 546 59 McDerr,ott 471 56 Meadowcli ff 449 65 Mitchell 256 86 Otter Creek 325 60 Pulaski Heights 340 75 Rioht sell 246 77 Rockefeller 289 87 Ror,ine 484 71 Stephens 218 90 Terry 481 57 Wakefield 467 62 Washington 214 93 Watson 491 63 Western Hills 314 61 Wilson 407 71 Woodruff 229 76 Total 12,389 67 EleMentary Magnet Schools Booker 636 51 Carver 362 49 Gibbs 265 49 Williar,s 496 50 Total 1,759 50 TOTAL ELEMENTARY 14,148 65 Special Schools 0 SCHOOLS Amboy Argenta . Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Crestwood Glenview -Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Pine Redwood Rose City Seventh Street TOTALS NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT ~{ OF OCTOBER1 , 1987 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSE XCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN NONBLACK 203 86 6 70 219 121 99 256 128 124 124 223 120 215 93 109 98 177 2,471 BLACK 137 92 7 54 265 89 . 93 133,_. 94 132 137 126 67 188 91 115 74 127 2,021 TOTALS 340 178 13 124 484 210 192 389 222 256 261 349 187 403 184 224 172 304 4,492 BLACK PERCENTAGE 40.3% 51. 7% 53.8% 43.5% 54.87. 42.4% 48.47. 34.27. 42.3% 51.6% 52.5% 36 .1% 35.8% 46.7% 49.5% 51.3% 43.0% 41. 8% 45.0% # ~A -NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS . RACIAL COUNT ,,._ AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1987 BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Baring Cross (secondary students) __ 9 18 27 66.77. SUBTOTALS 9 18 27 66.77. SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 433 258 691 37.37. -- Lakewood 350 132 482 27.47. Ridgeroad 340 279 619 45.17. Rose City 258 --- 175 433 40.47. SUBTOTALS 1,381 844 2,225 37.97. Northeast 862 329 1,191 27.67. Ole Main 606 424 1,030 41. 27. SUBTOTALS 1,468 753 2,221 33.97. SECONDARTYO TALS 2,858 1,615 4,473 36. li. ELEMENTARTYO TALS (excluding kindergarten) 2,471 2,021 4,492 45.0% DISTRICT TOTALS (excluding kindergarten) 5,329 3,636 8965 40.67.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1105","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Status report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-09-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School employees","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Status report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1105"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["207 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nM 'Kc S-l-a.J.,,,5 1'e rr+ on Ma,ncd scioo/ Devel~'\"'\". Serl 31 /9'l7 September 3, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. District Court Judge P. o. Box 3683 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Woods: OCT 2 0 i9i\n2 Olfice of Desegrega.1on orntor,ng Please find attached the fourth Magnet Review Committee status report on magnet school development and progress. The content of the report is limited to the topics listed in the Table of Contents. The Committee is prepared to elaborate on the areas described in the report and/or provide additional information as you may direct. The MRC has worked closely with the three districts and the State to ready the six magnet schools for the 1987-88 school year. We are pleased to report that the six anticipated magnet school programs are in place and operational. The MRC will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of interdistrict magnet school programs. Sincerely, ~~k-chairman Pulaski Couny S~al School District R~rp~ Arkansas Department of Education ~ Arma Hart Little Rock School District !f,,~8f::::'#~ JoshuaYr~~:~!enors :sl Attachment -i- ~~ Marcia H\nrding (/ Arkansas Department of Education ~ ~ James Smith North Little Rock School Executive Direct , MRC MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT September 3, 1987 -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Report Introduction................................. i Student Recruitment And Assignment.................. 1 Teacher Recruitment and Staffing.................... 4 Staff Training and Development...................... 6 Curricula Development............................... 12 Community Involvement............................... 13 Transportation... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Construction and Renovation Update.................. 16 Research and Evaluation............................. 18 Policy.............................................. 21 Magnet Review Committee Operation................... 23 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 -iii- STUDENT RECRUITMENT AND ASSIGNMENT RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES Since July 1987, the Magnet Educational Team (MET) has undertaken the following recruitment activities: A. Conducted open houses for all magnet schools. Approximately 800 people attended these and ninety-two (92) magnet school applications were received subsequent to this action. Names of those attending were kept for future recruitment. B. Mailed 30,000 flyers to parents in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts to inform them of the availability of magnet school seats and the open houses. C. Conducted a phone-a-then of 3,000 calls placed to parents in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. Approximately 1,300 actual contacts with parents resulted. The calls in Pulaski County Special School District were targeted to parents of white students. D. Purchased newspaper advertisements in both major papers serving Pulaski County. E. Prepared public service announcements which were run on nine radio stations in the area. F. Printed information concerning magnet schools on utility bills distributed by utility companies to patrons in the Pulaski County area. Additional recruitment efforts included: 1. Mailouts of letters to parents of magnet school students enrolled in Mann and Parkview Magnet Schools. This communique encouraged them to recruit among their friends for the possibility of magnet school enrollments. 2. Placing advertisements in the Arkansas Democrat and Arkansas Gazette August 19, 1987 and August 20, 1987 respectively. 3. Donna Grady, MRC Executive Director, and Ruth Simmons Herts, Chairperson, MET, appearing on the KOKY talk show \"Horizons\" to inform the public of and recruit for magnet schools. In compliance with the Court's Stipulation and Order establishing the composition of the MET, Litttle Rock School District has appointed to the MET James Jennings as its desegregation officer. -1- MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DATA The following two pages of charts delineate magnet school enrollment data. MAGNET SCHOOL SEATS ASSIGNED AS OF AUGUST -- 24, 1987 School CaEacity Assigned % White % Black Booker 710 677 52% (352) 48% (325) LRSD 428 46% (198) 54% ( 23 0) NLRSD 75 75% ( 5 6) 25% (19) PCSSD 174 56% ( 9 8) 44% ( 7 6) Carver 472 385 51% (195) 49% (190) LRSD 231 37% ( 8 5) 63% (146) NLRSD 53 68% (36) 32% (17) PCSSD 101 73% (7 4) 27% ( 2 7) Gibbs 326 280 55% (154) 45% (126) LRSD 220 46% ( 10 2) 54% (ll8) NLRSD 23 70% (16) 30% ( 7) PCSSD 37 54% ( 2 0) 46% (17) Williams 530 508 52% (263) 48% (245) LRSD 392 49% (194) 51% ( 19 8) NLRSD 31 39% (12) 61% (19) PCSSD 85 67% ( 5 7) 33% ( 2 8) Mann 975 708 48% ( 339) 52% (369) LRSD 532 46% ( 24 3) 54% (289) NLRSD 23 57% ( 13) 43% ( 10) PCSSD 153 54% ( 8 3) 46% ( 7 0) Parkview 1,150 795 47% ( 371) 53% (424) LRSD 659 43% ( 28 5) 57% ( 3 7 4) NLRSD 23 57% ( 13) 43% (10) PCSSD ll3 65% ( 7 3) 35% (40) TOTALS 4,155 3,353 50% (1,674) 50% (1679) LRSD 2,462 45% (1,107) 55% (1355) NLRSD 228 64% ( 146) 36% (82) PCSSD 663 61% ( 40 5) 39% (258) SOURCE: James Jennings, Little Rock School District's Student Assignment Office -2- MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: RACIAL RATIO SUMMARY TOTAL ELEMENTARY: BLACK: 886 (47.90%) WHITE: 964 (52.10%) TOTAL: 1,850 (100%) TOTAL SECONDARY: BLACK: WHITE: TOTAL: 793 (52. 77%) 710 (47 .23%) 1,503 (100%) TOTAL ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY: BLACK: WHITE: TOTAL: 1,679 (50%) 1,674 (50%) 3,353 (100%) Although the current (by school) enrollment does not comply with the Court's order to balance magnet school enrollment 50% white/SO% black, the Magnet Review Committee assures the Court that extraordinary effort has gone into student recruitment in an effort to comply with the spirit of the Order. A major factor in racial imbalance on the elementary school level is the under-enrollment of black students at Gibbs. The districts are currently notifying waiting list students as to the availability of seats. Assignment of black students from the waiting lists will balance the ratio. The action taken by the MRC to freeze enrollment of blacks and further recruit whites on the secondary school level will positively affect racial distribution. -3- TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND STAFFING The Little Rock School District actively recruited certified individuals for positions in magnet schools. Job announcements were distributed by the Little Rock School District's Personnel Office. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts' Personnel Offices received and distributed copies of these job announcements. State and out-of-state colleges, universities and newspapers were contacted. The Arkansas Arts Center, Arkansas Repertory Theatre, and the International Heifer Project were notified as to vacant positions. The current staffing status is reported on the following page. -4- MAGNET SCHOOL STAFF EMPLOYED as of August 28, 1987 CERTIFIED STAFF School Total Staff # Black % Black # White % White Booker 43 14 33% Vacancies: 2 (reserved for blacks) Carver 34 Vacancies: None Gibbs 27 Vacancies: 2 Williams 33 Vacancies: None Mann 60 Vacancies: None Parkview 74 Vacancies: None Booker 14 Vacancies: 4 Carver 11 Vacancies: 2 Gibbs Vacancies: 3 Williams Vacancies: 2 Mann Vacancies: 6 Parkview 8 13 7 13 Vacancies: None 14 41% 9 33% 8 24% 25 42% 24 32% NON-CERTIFIED STAFF 13 93% 9 82% 8 100% 5 38% 4 57% 6 46% 29 67% 20 59% 18 67% 25 76% 35 58% 50 68% 1 7% 2 18% 0 0% 8 62% 3 43% 7 54% SOURCE: Magnet School Principals, Assistant Principals, and Staff Richard Maple, Director of Personnel, Little Rock School District -5- STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT Each magnet school faculty and staff participated in special magnet school staff development meetings/conferences/ workshops prior to the regularly scheduled Little Rock School District teacher inservice. Magnet sc.hool employees, many of whom were new to the magnet school setting, had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with school themes, goals and objectives, and curricula. Arkansas and out-ofstate consultants planned and provided the inservice training. Agendas from some of the staff development sessions are included in this section of the report. -6- WEEK l August 10 August 11 August 12 August 13 August 14 WEEK 2 August 17 August 18 August 19 August 20 August 21 WEEK 3 August 24 August 25 August 26 August 27, 28, 29 CARVER MAGNET SCHOOL IN-SERVICE SCHEDULE Staff Cohesiveness and Race Relations Donita Hudspeth Orientation and Management System Dress Code Mary E. Guinn Young Astronaut Program Lawanna White Science Program and Process Skills Rene' Carson, Lola Perritt Invention Convention Dr. Cathy Valentino Scheduling Anne Mangan, Trish Killingsworth Special Education Barbara Graves, Shirley Walker TESA Diane Wood, Rene' Carson PET Maintenance Mary E. Guinn Computer Inservice Computer Inservice Assertive Discipline Jo Evelyn Elston or Mary Classroom Management Mary Guinn Cooperative Learning/Mastery Learning Diane Wood, Judy Trowell IRC VIPS Mary Mosley LeeAnn Matson Writing Across the Curriculum Marvin Zimmerman Guinn Correlate text with Basic Skills, Mat 6, Minimum Performance, etc. State Department of Education Inservice on Jeacher Evaluation Mary Guinn Explanation of Specialists' Program Educational Specialists 9:00 - 11:00 Robinson Auditorium County Wide Meeting 11:00 - 2:30 On Your Own 2:30 - 4:00 Cluster Meeting (07) Hall High Media Center Work in Classrooms -7- II i I I I I I i II ..__ :JIM ATTRACTED TO PARKVlEW FINE ARTS MAGNET PARKVIEW FINE ARTS MAGNET Inservice/Staff Development August 20, 1987 8:30 a.m. / Library Welcome and Introduction Overview \"Academics\" Teacher Views Student Views - Questions/Answers Lunch 11:30 - 12:30 \"The Arts\" Mr. Junious Babbs Principal/Parkview Mr~ Robert Watkins Principal/Arts Magnet Mrs. Carol Francois English Chairperson Ms. Rose Parker Social Studies Chairperson Video Presentation Parkview/AMHS Staff Dance Dr. Rosann Cox Visual Arts Theatre Music - Questions/Answers - Wrap up -8- Coordinator Ms. Josephine Jones Coordinator Mrs. Louise Smith Coordinator Dr. Douglas Cornell Coordinator Parkview/AMHS Staff Mr. Junious Babbs Principal/Parkview I I I ' , i I I I'M ATTRACTED TO PARK VIEW Fl Nl:: ARTS MAGNET PA!{K\\'IE\\,' FIKE ARTS MAGNET ln se r v i ce/S taff Development Au ~us t 19, 1987 8:30 a .m./Li br a~v I. Introducti on of ~ew Faculty and Staff Freddie Baer Gladys Bradford Anthony Bruce Joe Cripps Terry Daniel Millie Farlow Corky Haygood German/Dance Specialist Kindergarten - long term Art/Dance Specialist Music Specialist Health/Coach Music Specialist Assistant Principal Katherine Wright-Knight English Instructor Jane Morgan Gertrude Munns Teresa Seals Jerome Sims II. Welcome Ill. An Update Status of Renovation Communications Specialist Library Clerk Office Secretary Campus Supervisor Student Numbers/Master Schedule Teacher/Student Handbook Schedule - Wednesday and Thursday Preparing For the Magnet School Experience Mrs. Ella Washington, Music Supervisor Milwaukee Public Schools -9- I I I I I I I I I I - \\ \\ I ,.....::,-......__ Williams LI I 1 Lt: ~CC( SCHOOL DISTRICT Williams Magnet Scho,,I Pre-School Staff ~evelopmen~ :nseruic~ s~.1cd~le (Tentative} August 17 (Monday) 7:40 - 8:15 8:15 - 9:00 Coffee/donuts and get acquainted Introductions/welcome Williams Staff Supervisory Personnel Administrative Personnel Magnet Review Personnel 9~00 - -10:00--- Magnet school definition/history/overview 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10.15 - 11:30 Changes in Williams Magnet School curriculum Job Descriptions Vice Principal Magnet Specialists Accelerated Learning Specialists 11:30 - Lunch 12:30 - 2:55 ---Organization of classroom for instruction ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 18 (Tuesday) 7:40 - 8:00 --- Coffee 8:00 - 10:00 --- Overview of School's: 10:00 - Break Philosophy Expectations Goals 10:00 - 11:30 --- Continue above 11:30 - Lunch 12:30 - 2:55 --- PET review -10- Objectives Guidelines (Handbook/District Mission Statement/NC Goals and Objective~ Williams Magnet Goal Individual Teacher Goals) I I August 19 (Wednesday) 7:40 - 8:00 --- Coffee 8:00 - 10:00 --- Instructional Activities/Strategies Reading 10:00 - 10:15 - Break Assessment for grouping Grouping stratagies Appropriate materials Managing multiple reading groups Managing non-directed activities Learning center strategies Shifting gears for various reading groups Assistance from ALPS and Magnet Specialists Instructional techniques Evaluation Effective/efficient record keeping Other 10:15 - 11:00 - English Handwriting Writing Across Curriculum (WAC) Spelling 11.00 - 11:30 - Social Studies 11:30 - 12:30 - Lunch 12:30 - 1:00 - Science 1:00 - 1:30 - Health 1:30 - 2:55 - Math ---------------------------------------------------------------------- August 20 - 21 (Thursday) and (Friday until noon) 7:40 - 8:00 --- Coffee 8:00 - 2:55 - Classroom Management (15 minute break at lunch trom 11:30 - 12:00 Friday A:ternoon 12:30 - Corre~ating speciclist conten~ with basic skills (15 min .. each) Art I.E. Speech !-,usic ~urse hesource -11- Library Counselor ALPS CURRICULA DEVELOPMENT In accordance with recommendations in the May 23, 1987 MRC report to the Court, principals and other staff members of magnet schools participated in the development of the magnet schools' curricula. Dr. Beverly White, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Little Rock School District, presented the curriculum guides for the six magnet schools to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors on Thursday, August 27, 1987. The MRC reviewed the plans for curricula development of the Little Rock School District and will continue to stay involved in the process. -12- I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The Magnet Review Committee is aware of the need to involve the community in an effort to develop magnet schools that will attract students. Examples of activities involving the community are the following: 1. April-May, 1987: Gene Jones, Chairman, Magnet Review Committee, and Ruth Shepherd, Member, Magnet Education Team, were interviewed on KARN, providing information on magnet schools to listeners. 2. April-May, 1987: A MET subcommittee prepared magnet school Public Service announcements. Committee members were Janet Coburn, William Robinson, Alfreda Marshall, and Ruth Shepherd. Through these announcements, information on magnet schools was provided throughout the community. 3. April-May, 1987: Brochures describing elementary, junior high, and senior high magnet school programs were prepared and distributed in high visibility areas (e.g., hospitals, grocery stores, discount stores, etc.) 4. July, 1987: The MET conducted a phone-a-than calling approximately 3,000 parents in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. Approximately 45 people volunteered their time and energy to ensure the phone-a-thon's success. These volunteers were parents, teachers, MET members, MRC members, CTA members, principals, student council members, PTA members, and school district personnel. During the phone-a-thon, parents and students received answers to questions about magnet schools and magnet school enrollment. Three businesses opened their doors to the MET to conduct the phone-a-than, which further involved the community. Worthen Bank, KARK-TV Channel 4, and the Arkansas Education Association provided facilities and phones. 5. July, 1987: The Magnet Educational Team, MRC, and the magnet school principals planned and conducted open houses which targeted parents in the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County School District. Over 800 parents attended the open houses which -13- provided for dialogue and information on enrollment, curricula, course offerings, staffing, counseling, extracurricular activities, and other magnet issues. 6. July, 1987: The MRC established a full-time office and staff. The office provides, in addition to other functions, a one-to-one contact with magnet school patrons, students, staff, administrators, and interested parties. 7. August, 1987: Donna Grady, MRC Executive Director, and Ruth Simmons Herts, MET Chairperson, and Director of Desegregation for Pulaski County Special School District, appeared as guests on the KOKY talk show \"Horizons.\" This format provided parents, students, and community and business members an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about magnet schools. 8. August-September 1987: All schools have planned open houses to allow parents and community members an opportunity to receive information on the schools' total programs. -14- TRANSPORTATION The Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA) meets or confers semi-weekly, according to Jim Bohannon, ITA Chairperson. The school districts have been cooperative in working to devise a system for transportation. This cooperation extends to the Little Rock School District transporting some Pulaski County Special School District students to magnet schools. The ITA is working with the Magnet Review Committee and the secondary school principals to design an extracurricular activity transportation schedule. This schedule will be available in the latter part of September. Magnet school bus routes for all three districts are still being finalized. The MRC will review the transportation system as it operates through this current school year with an eye toward efficiency and economy, and make suggested changes as deemed necessary in the future. -15- CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION UPDATE A brief description of the status of renovation at each magnet school follows. BOOKER Booker Arts Magnet School is scheduled to receive asbestos removal, interior cosmetic renovation, and roof repair. At this time, asbestos removal has been completed. Interior renovation is partially complete with portable buildings being used to replace unfinished rooms. Roof repair will begin September 24, 1987. In summary, the building is usable and school should proceed with minimal interruption. OLD CARVER The original Carver building is to be replaced with a new structure, but some work has been required to make the original building usable. Accordingly, a science laboratory and a computer laboratory have been installed and are presently in use. In summary, the building is functional, and school is proceeding successfully. GIBBS Gibbs International Studies Magnet School is receiving major renovation. The work on the media center, administrative offices, language laboratory, hallways, and some classrooms is completed. The remaining work, including heat and air, carpeting, and classroom refinishing work will be completed in the summer of 1988. The condition of the building should promote a successful school year. MANN Some essential elements of the major renovation of Mann have been completed, but most of the work will be done in the summer of 1988. The piano laboratory and computer laboratory work has been completed. The re-roofing of the building began August 31, 1987. PARKVIEW The piano laboratory and dance studio will be completed by September 8, 1987. Equipment installation will follow immediately. No other major work is planned for Parkview. -16- NEW CARVER Plans for the new Carver building are complete and being prepared for bids. The Committee has studied the plans and finds them to be suitable for effective magnet school instruction. The question of costs is, of course, a concern\ntherefore, the architect is preparing alternatives for purposes of negotiating costs if necessary. The present plans allow for 600 students\nhowever, the Committee believes the size of the building can be reduced if necessary to bring construction costs within budget. A copy of the building program manual is being sent under separate cover. In summary, the condition of the magnet school buildings is not ideal\nhowever, school can proceed as planned with slight adjustments in operations. -17- RESEARCH AND EVALUATION The MRC Chair, Gene Jones, appointed a subcommittee for Magnet School Research and Evaluation. The subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of devising a plan for evaluating magnet schools. Such evaluation shall encompass determining the desegregative effects of the magnet school programs, as well as the educational quality of these programs. The subcommittee will collect information on similar studies conducted in the United States, and identify consultants who can assist with planning and implementing the research and evaluation. -18- RESEARCH/EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE MAGNET SCHOOLS MEETING DATE August 4, 1987 MEMBERSHIP Marcia Harding, Donna Grady, Herb Williams FOCUS Research and evaluation considerations regarding impact of magnet schools as interdistrict remedy (the Little Rock metro area). KEY VARIABLES 1. Philosophy, Policy, Practices Students Parents Program Personnel 2. Parent and Community Involvement 3. Resource Allocation Funding Staff Physical Facilities 4. Staffing and Leadership Attitudes Relationships Staff Development 5. Instruction Planning Curriculum Evaluation -19- 6. Program and Student Outcomes PHASES Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Student Performance Data Attitudes Satisfaction Determine the extent to which key variables exist in magnet school sites. Develop research/evaluation paradigm or model able to generate data from school sites. Initiate data collection, analysis, interpretations. Continuation of Phase III, plus discerning impact and implications. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP FOR SUBCOMMITTEE 1. Review related literature in search of existing model. 2. Identify personnel available for consultation. -20- POLICY The MRC is cognizant of the Court's June 30, 1987 Order clarifying the role of the MRC in policy development for the operation of the interdistrict magnet school programs and setting forth guidelines for presentation of MRC policy decisions to the Court for adoption subsequent to the Order. The \"Policy on Interdistrict Magnet School Student Transfers\" included in this report was developed and adopted by the MRC prior to the Court's Order. It has been disseminated to the districts for implementation. As policies governing the interdistrict magnet schools are developed in the future, they will be submitted to the Court in accordance with the Court's Order. -21- POLICY ON INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL STUDENT TRANSFERS Students enrolled in an Interdistrict Magnet School will be required to remain in the magnet school for a minimum of one semester. Students who develop extenuating circumstances which might warrant a change in assignment prior to completion of one semester may petition to obtain a change of assignment. Petitions will be received by the host district. Petitions will be reviewed by a three (3) member committee comprised of student assignment officers or designates for the three (3) Pulaski County, Arkansas, districts. A majority of these officers will determine whether a student is allowed to change assignment.* Specific student assignment will be made according to policies of the home district. *Identified handicapped students are excluded from the review process as described herein. Decisions pertaining to the appropriateness of their educational programming and placement shall be made in accordance with Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act 102 regulatory procedures. -22- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE OPERATION The Magnet Review Committee Office is located at 22nd and Poplar Streets, North Little Rock, and is housed in the North Little Rock School District Administration Annex, Room 105. The office is staffed by Donna L. Grady, Executive Director, and Sandra Luehrs, Secretary. The Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Martha Nelsen, Director) is the fiscal agent for the MRC Office. The Magnet Review Committee has held eight scheduled meetings and four called meetings since the last report. Copies of the minutes of these meetings are available upon request. The MRC held election of officers September 1, 1987. The election results are as follows: Marcia Harding (ADE) - Chairperson Herb Williams (Joshua Intervenors) - Vice-Chair Outgoing Chairman, Gene Jones, will no longer represent Pulaski County Special School District. He will be employed as Associate Director for Instruction for the Arkansas Department of Education. The Committee acknowledges his fine year of dedication, service, and leadership. -23- - RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Magnet Review Committee recommends that magnet school enrollment of the majority race (at that school) be frozen. Schools should be allowed to accept other race applicants until the 50% Black/50% White ratio required by the Court is reached. 2. The MRC recommends that the Little Rock School District Personnel Department and principals continue to strive toward their stated goal of 50% Black/50% White staffing within a five-year period. The MRC will stay informed of future plans for staffing and will see that magnet school staffing guidelines are being followed. 3. The MRC recommends that future inservice training content include desegregation training for magnet school staff members. -24-\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_409","title":"Discipline, annual district suspension summary report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1987/1988"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual district suspension summary report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/409"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 ANNUAL DISTRICT SUSPENSION SUMMARY REPORT August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 Pupil Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansast  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-8,8 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June IS, 1 08 SCHOOL REASON CODE (SHMT-TERi^. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H H/F WAL (BEvtffiS^\u0026amp;AYS) 0/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL Senior High Totals Junior High Totals Elementary Totals GRAND TOTALS Percent District-Wide Total 317 114 74 22 527 24 9 3 0 36 1,005 349 553 359 108 2,025 56 12 13 2 83 75 49 3 476 2 1 0 0 3 1,671 li\\2 25% 482 16% 133 4% 3,028 94% 82 67% 22 16 18% 13% 2 2% 122 4% 1,671 742 482 133 3,028 82 22 16 2 122 55% 25% 16% 18% 13% 2% 4% 1987-88 D STRICT Black Male Black Female Miite Male I'Jliite Female Black Male Black Female Total 8,003 7,860 15,863 3T 30' fV .o 1% 61% 1,780 777 2,557 506 137 WIDE ENROLLMENT BY RACl White Male 5,021  White Female 4^9^ Total 9,950 Black Male Overrepreseitatior : Izt Black Overrepresentati30: 19% District Suspi lyt)7-88 Li.,ti ict Wide T 'tal Enrol lemnt Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment EXPULSION 6/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL 26,128 15,863 9.950 315 OTT total 61% 33% * Q\u0026gt; 1 16 10 1 27 7 6 0 13 54% 26% 21 13 1 7 0 8 16% 8 0 2 0 2 4% 2 24 25 1 50 2% 50 587 2,133 480 3.200 3,200 16' '.*8 67J 15' O' 12.2% 12.2 54% 26% 16% 4% 27 56% 24% 80% 16% 4% 20% AND s :x 19' e' A\u0026gt; 19% 387 nsion Suspension Rate 22- 10'\n16% 10% 3% 6% Other Male Other Female Total !ate\n12.2% 169 146 315 0.6' 0.5 1.1SCHOOL TLASON COOL 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-68 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 Sub-Total Sub-Total GRAND TOTAL r-'. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL UlilRlCl SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary by Reason Code August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 WT-Of-ME------ {SH0RT-TERJ4. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H H/F DIAL (beyI^*?X^\u0026amp;ays) B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/W B/F W/H H/F TOTAL WT TOTAL 9 19 465 4 50 217 348 8 5 146 6 102 23 8 5 245 1 33 110 109 6 137 3 1 26 1-13A 16 1-13B 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-3A 2-38 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-10 2-11 2-12 3-3 3-4 3-6 3-7A 3-78 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 4 16 1 86 1 44 17 3 4 51 29 99 1 1 27 32 29 1 9 14 13 3 36 1,434 667 436 2 17 8 9 3 3 4 128 20 31 873  5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 31 873 5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 1 83'5 42 14 36 1 6 8 2 6 6 5 57 1 1 7 9 12 7 3 2 12 237 8 8 11 1 4 1 4 1 54 23 52 2 7 11 5 1 1 28 1 7 4 13 1 2 1 8 6 2 1 75 1,671 742 1 8 3 46 482 1 5 133 6 8 2 7 13 TOO 2 1 1 8 18 27 7 5 2 16 363 3,028 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 22 1 6 2 1 1 2 6 3 7 1 1 5 32 82 2 2 8 2 22 22 4 1 2 16 16 1 2 2 11 12 6 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 31 1 4 8 3 20 2 1 9 122 122 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 11 5 2 10 1 5 2 4 1 12 22 1 2 1 2 66 37 58 3 1 11 8 3 7 14 132 2 4 2 1 16 27 15 07 9 6 5 25 27 21 13 8 2 50 535 17, 13 8 2 50 3,200 12*.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Revised Susper n Reason Codes 19O7-CO 1 - Violations of Category 1 offenses\nClassroom and Building Rules: 1-1 1-2 - Academic dishonesty (cheating on tests: copying\nforging signature of teacher o.' parent) - Failure to report to office when directed to do so 2-4 2-5 2-6 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-6B 1-7 1-8 1-9 - Fighting - Harassment (nuisance telephone calls to students, or staff Bsabers\ncontinued coerments or passing of notes to another Individual that ha does not wish to hear or receive) - Leaving school grounds without permission - Teacher disobedience - Refusing to obey rules and regulations - Refusing to follow bus rules and regulations - Refusing to do assigned work - Refusing to serve detention 2-7 2-0 2-9 2-10 2-11 . 2-12 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13A 1-130 - Smoking - Using foul or abusive language (obscenities) - Verbal assault on another student or others (fighting words) - First offense use and/or possession of alcohol - First offense use and/or possession of nonprescribed drugs, hallucinogens, marijuana or similar substances or of any unauthorized drugs . or substances. 2 - Violations of Category 2 offenses 2-1 - Assault 2-2 - Oattery 2-3 - Theft 2-3A - Burglary/larccny 2-33 - Robbery - Criminal trespassing - Gambling - False alarm - Loitering - Hallclous mischief - Unlawful asscffhly - Indecent exposure - Disorderly conduct - Harassing communications 3 - Violations of Category 3 offenses: 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7A 3-70 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 - Sale or distribution of alcohol - Second offense, alcohol - Sale or distribution of drugs - Second offense, drugs - Failure to follow through with drug or alcohol counseling or trcatra\nnt - Arson - Physical assault on staff - Verbal assault on staff - Possession of firearm - Possession of weapon - Possession of flrcirorks or explosives - Extortion, blaclunall or coercion - Encl ting to riot 4 - (Offense not specifically ^ntioned in studwt conduct code but which calls for disciplinary action if It is disruptive, hams others, or has a potentially d1sn4)ltvo affect on the school environment because of Its criminal nature.) (Revised 1/C3)GRADE LEVEL ENROLLEHEWT little ROCk SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA Grade Black ? White % Other % Total % 10th 1076 51 985 48 31 1 2092 34 1987-83 Annual District Summary ills 1085 51 i 55 August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 51 985 I 108! 48 31 SCHOOL (EASON CODE MiW-^ (SWJST-TEHM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H U/F TOL (BEyhS^iJ^YS) B/M b/F N/H tf/F TOTAL Senior High Total Grade 10 Percent Black White Grade 11 Percent Black White Grade 12 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Bl ack White 141 58% 118 60 15 243 16 7 2 0 25 25% 11% 201/83% 42/17% 6% 86% 64% 28% 8% 23/92% 2/8% 0 9% 37 18 3 176 7 1 0 0 9 67% 21% 10% 155/88% 21/12% 2% 92% 78% z2% 9/100% 0 58 17 29 4 108 1 0 1 0 1 53% 16% 27% 75/69% 33/31% 317 114 60% 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 4% 22 4% 95% 50% 50% 1/50% 1/50% 2% 527 90% 24 9 3 0 36 67% 25% 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 6% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION 8/W 6ZF WZH /F 10 4 1 0 67% in n 14/93% 1/7% 0 4 1 0 0 bn 33% 6/100% 0 1 1 0 0 67% 33% 3/100% 0 16 1 1 0 67% 29% 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 TOTAL 15 5% 6 3 3% 24 4% 48% 51% 1% w TOTAL 283 238 45 191 170 21 113 79 34 587 487 100 I 48% 84% 16% . 33% 89% 11% 19% 70% 30% 18 83% 17%SCHOOL (EASON C)E 53T1OT55L------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/E M/H M/F CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE RoCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-83 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1983  I , I 50/ OUIlC I J , Senior High Level 1987-88 Enrol Itnenr Black Enrol lire\" Whi te Enrol lirent Other 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 48? 51 * n 1% TOL (beyS^TJ^^ys) B/H B/F W/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL TOTAL 1 Grand Tota Percent Black White 35 39% 26 29% 20 22% 61/68% 29/32% 9 10% 90 84% 5 46% 3 27% 8/73% 3/27% 3 27% 0 0 11 10% 3 50% 2 33% 5/83% 1/17% 1 17% 0 6 6% 107 18% FAIR HIGH SPOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HALL HIGH SCtOOL Grand Tota' Percent Black White 18 25 18 1 162 7 2 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 3 73% 81 66% MCCLELLAN HIC TSCHC )L Grand Total Percent Black White 59 58% 15% 11% 143/88% 19/12% 30 25% 10 8% 111/91% 11/9% 26 26% 12 12% 85/84% 16/16% METROPOLITAN VO-TEC 1 Grand Tota' Percent Black White 12 43% 3 10% 8 29% 15/54% 13/46% 1% 1 1% 4 4% 5 18% 93% 78% 22% 9/100% 0 5% 100% 3/100% 0 2% PhRKVIEW HIGH SCHOO. 74 33 174 155 19 122 88% 101 89% 28 100% 69% 31% 30% 89% 11% 5 71% 6 75% 0 2 29% 0 0 7 5% 5 50% 5 50% 0 0 10 7% 139 24% 7/100% 0 10/100% 0 128 11 92% 8% 2 25% 0 0 8 7% 5 100% 0 0 0 5 4% 114 19% 8/100% 0 5/100% 0 98 6 86% 14% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 15 13 5% 54% 46% Grand Total Percent Black White TCTAL SENIOR HIGH LI Grand Total Percent Black White 12 50% 4 17% 6 25% 16/67% 8/33% 2 8% 24 96% 1 00% 0 0 0 1 4% 0 0 0 0 0 25 4% . VEL 317 60% 114 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 22 4% 527 90% 24 )7% 1/100% 0 9 25% 3 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 0 36 6% 16 67% 0 0 17 8 68% 32% 7 29% 1 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 0 24 4% 587 18% 487 100 18t 83% 17'll Hli. T\nI, 1 Ota I 1 .TIB ,.'.0116 I ,'115 5.854 uUl L I I..,, , 33?. 34\n33-. little rock school district SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Aiinudl District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 'ior High Enrollment 5.854 Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other 3,613 2,166 75 62% 37% 1% SCHOOL IWSON CODE {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) JUNIOR HIGH Grade 7 Percent Black White Grade 8 Percent Black White Grade 9 Percent Black White Grand Total Percent Black White total\nfl/H B/F M/H 368 171 127 54% 25% 539/79% 141/21% 358 192 19% 81 53% 29% 550/82% 122/18% 279 190 12% 151 41% 28%\n469/70% 204/30% 1,005 553 23% 359 50% 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 18% H/F 14 2% 41 6% 53 8% 108 5% WAL 680 97% 672 95% 673 92% 2,025 955 (BEtl^iJ^\u0026amp;Ays) B/M B/F H/H M/F 9 4 3 0 56% 17 63% 30 75% 56 68% TOTAL 16 25% 19% 13/81 % 3/19% 0 2% 5 3 2 27 19% 11% 22/81% 5/19% 7% 4% 3 7 0 40 7% 18% 33/83% 7/17% 12 13 14% 16% 68/82% 15/18% 0 2 2% 6% 83 4% EXPULSION B/H 8/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT total 1 2 3 0 0 5 701 33% 40% 4 67% 4 29% 10 40% 60% 5/100% 0_____ 0 0 1% 557 144 79% 21 (W la 2 0 0 6 705 33% 33% 6/100% 0 0 0 1% 578 127 82% 18% 1 7 2 14 727 34% 7% 5/36% 9/64% 50% 14% 2% ' 507 220 70% 30% 6 7 2 25 2,133 67, 24% 16/64% 9/36% 28% 8% 1 1,642 491 77% 23%SCHOOL lEASON CODE dUT-OP-MiWi:------ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) B/H B/F W/H H/F CLOVERDALE 31 . HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White_______ DUNBAR 3R. H Grand Total Percent Black White 221 56% 105 56 26% 14% 325/82% 71/18% 15 4% GH SCIOOL 195 51% 121 52 32% 14% 316/83% 65/17% 13 3% FOREST HEIGHTS 3R. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HENDERSON 3R . HIGH 121 42% 83 58 29% 20% 204/71% 83/29% 25 9% SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HABELVALE 3R Grand Total Percent Black White HIGH 179 49% SCHOOL 99 47% 93 65 25% 18% 272/74% 97/26% 64 46 30% 22% 163/77% 48/23% 32 8% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 BIAL 396 93% 381 95% 287 98% 369 98% B/M B/F M/H tf/F TOTAL 2 1% 211 95% 28 88% 9 53% 0 0 0 0 3 50% 2 6% 30/94% 2/6% 3 18% 12/71% 5/29% 0 0 0 2 6% 0 0 32 7% 3 2 18% 11% 2 100% 2/100% 0 0 4 ( 100% ( 4/100% 0 0 0 ! 3/50% 3/50% 3 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4% 2 1% 4 1% 6 3% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25% 25% 2/50% 2/50% 1 25% 1 25% 1 3 25% 75% 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 33\n, 2 67% 0 0 0 100% 0 4/100% 0______ 0 0 0 0 5,854 3,613 2,166 75 TOTAL 0 0 4 1% 4 1% 3 1% 4 2% 62% 37% 1% TOT TOTAL 428 355 73 402 330 72 293 208 85 376 277 99 221 170 -Si 20% 83% 17% 19% 82% 18% 14% 71% 29% 18% 74% 26% 10% 77% 231LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 SCHOOL CEASOR CODE oorsrsnroc (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F mi (BEYl583'iJ^^YS) B/M b/F H/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TO TOTAL 1 MANN OR. HIGH MAGNE' SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White 25 36% 19 : 27%\n44/63% 26/37% 21 30% 5 7% 70 95% 3 75% 1 ( 25% I 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 4 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 48 26 3% 65% 35% PULASKI HEIGH S OR. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black . White 58 59% 26 27% 84/86% 14/14% 10 10% 4 4% 98 90% 5 63% 2 25% 7/88% 1/12% 1 12% 0 0 8 7% 3 100% 0 I 0 I 3/100% 0 0 0 0 0 3 3% 109 94 15 5% 86% 14% SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH Grand Total Percent Black White 107 50% 43 ! 20% : 150/70% 63/30% 51 24% 12 6% 213 93% 8 80% 0 0\n8/80% 2/20% 2 20% 0 0 10 4% 1 14% 1 14% ! 2/29% 5/71% 4 58% 1 14% 7 3% 230 11% TOTAL JUNIOR 1 IGH LE7EL Grand Total Percent Black White 1,005 50% 553 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 359 18% 108 5% 2,025 95! 56 68% 12 14% 68/82% 15/18% 13 16% 2 2% 83 4% 10 40% 6 24%\n16/64% 9/36% 7 28% 2 8% 25 1% 160 70 70% 30% 2,133 67i 1,642 491 77% 23%ripinentary Enrollment Total\nBl ack Whi te ether 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.1% 1987-83 1.0% SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary I EASON SCHOOL CODE OUT-OF-iCHOOL (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) - ........ H/F UIAL B/H BZF W/H B/M (BEYbSS^iS^^YS) B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL W TOTAL 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS GRADE K Percent Black Whi te GRADE 1 Percent Black White GRADE 2 Percent Black White GRADE 3 Percent Black White GRADE 4 Percent Black White GRADE 5 Percent Black White 2 67 0 1 33 2/67% 1/33% 0 3 0 0 3 .6 67 33 12 75 1 2 6.3 12.4 13/81.2% 3/18.8% 1 6.3 16 0 0 16 3.3 31.2 18.8 21 78 0 I 6 22 21/77.8% 6/22.2% 0 27 0 0 27 5.6 77.8 22.2 65 76 12 14 9 10 77/90% 9/10% 0 86 0 0 86 17.9 90 10 77 72 81 18 11 16.8 10.3 95/88.8% 12/11.2% 28 8 69.3 23.9 6.8 109/93.2% ____________8/6.8% 1 .9 0 107 99.1 117 99.2 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 .8 1/100% 0 1 .9 0 108 118 22.5 88.8 11.2 24.6 93.2 6.8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary SCHOOL lEASON CODE (SHORT-TERM. 3-10 DAYS) B/l-1 B/F H/H F- W/F IJIAL B/H (.nWSn) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL 1 GRADE 6 Percent Black White 91 16 12 75.9 13.3 10 107/89% 13/11% 1 .8 120 98.4 1 50 1 50 2/100% 0____ 2 1.6 0 122 25.5 89.3 10.7 GRAND TOTAL Percent Black White_____ 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1' * . K 52/10.9% 3 .6 476 99.2 2 67 1 33 0 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15 3/100% 0 1/100% 0 89.2 10.SV E'.en-entary Enrollment Total: Slack White ether ELEMENTARY GRANO TOTALS 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 65.9% 33 .'1% l.OX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Summary SCHOOL lEASON CODE 6uT-6F-Sro----- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) -  -- ....... W/F B/H \u0026gt; B/F W/H TOAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^Says) B/F W/H M/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F TOTAL W TOTAL z BADGETT Grand Total Percent Black White 415 Grand Total 'Percent SI ack Whi te BASELINE jrand Total arcent Black Xhile BOOKER Brand Total Bercent Black Xhite BRADY Grand Total ercent Black White GARVER Grand Total ercent Black White 16 100 0 0 0 1 100 0 12 7S 21 16/100% 0 0 0 16 100 0 0 16 3.. 10, 1/100% 0 4 25 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 1 .2 IOC 16/100% 0 2 87.5 4.2 8.3 22/91.7% 2/ 8.3% 2 50 12 80 0 1 25 0 16 100 24 100 0 0 16 3.  IOC 0 0 24 5.C 91. 8.3 1 25 3/75% 1/25% 3 20 12/80% 3/20% 0 0 4 100 15 100 0 0 4 .3 75 25 0 0 15 3.1 80 20r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS 1987-88 Annual Sumnarv SCHOOL 1 EASON CODE WT-W-SCOT------- (SHORT-TEBH, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F WAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^^ys) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I CHICOT Grand Total Percent Black White DODD Grand Total Percent Black White FOREST PARK Grand Total Percent Black White FRANKLIN Grand Total Percent Black White FULBRIGHT Grand Total Percent Black White GARLAND Grand Total Percent Black White 72 75 16 7 16.7 7.3 88/91.7? 8/ 8.3? 1 1.0 96 100 0 0 96 20 O L 10 1 5 58.8 5.9 29.4 11/64.71 n 6/35.3? 19 5 4 67.8 17.9 14.3 24/85.7? 4/14.3? 4 3 0 57.1 42.9 7/100? 0 1 100 0 0 1/100? 0 14 3 0 82.4 17.6 17/100? 0 1 5.9 17 94.4 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 100 7 100 1 100 17 94.4 1/100? _Q__ 1 5.6 0 18 3.E 66. 33. 0 0 28 5.E 85. 14. 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 7 1.5 icr 0 1 .2 IOC 1/100? 0 1 5.6 18 3.8 100LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS Sunmary SCHOOL REASON CODE mrOTJi (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F UTAL B/M {BEYbMD^iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I. GEYER SPRINGS Grand Total Percent Black White 8 3 53.3 20 4 26.7 0 15 I nn* 0 0 15 3.1 '/26.7 73. 26. GIBBS ijrand Total Percent Black White ISH JrTnd Total Percent Black White JEFFERSON Grand Total Percent Black White MABELVALE Grand Total Percent Black White MeOEPMOTT Grand Total Percent Bl acl i\u0026gt;'h i te 4 67 2 33 0 0 1 50 6 75 18 1 50 2 25 4 6/100? 0 6 100? 0 c 6 1.5 IOC 0 0 2/100? _2__ 2 100? 0 0 2 .4 ICC 0 0 8/100? 0 8 100? 0 0 8 1.7 ICC 1 78.2 17.4 4.4 22/95.7 ___________1/4.3 19 3 2 79.2 12.5 8.3 22/91.7 ___________2/8^ 0 0 23 100? 24 961 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 23 4.8 95. 4.3 1/1001 0 I? 1 4? 25 5.2 92 _____8..ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL REASON CODE ronoro {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Sunmary MEADOWCUFF Grand Total Percent Black White 8/H B/F W/H 4 100 0 0 4/100% 0 W/F 0 TJTAL 4 100% (BEvbSg^J^\u0026amp;Jrs) B/M B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 EXPULSION B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 W TOTAL 4 1 .8 100 MITCHELL Grand Total Percent Black White OTTER CREEK (Irand Total Percent Black White RIGHTSELL Grand Total Percent Black White ROCKEFELLER Grand Total Percent Black White ROMINE Grand Total Percent Black White 1 25 0 3 75 1/25% 3/75% 0 4 100% 0 0 4 .8 25 75 1 100 0 0 0 2 25 22 88 0 1/100% 0 1 5 12.5 62.5 3/37.5% 5/62.5% 0 0 I 3 12 22/88% 3/12% 0 0 I 3 100 0 3/100% 0 1 50% 8 100% 25 lOOJ 3 100% 0 1 ( 100 1/100% 0 0 0 1 50% 0 2 .4 100 0 0 8 1.7 37.5 62.5 0 0 25 5.2 88 12 0 0 3 .6 100ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL lEASON CODE 5u7:i5rOTn[ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/n B/F W/H H/F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 THAL SUSPENSION DATA Annual Suonary B/M (BEYbNS'iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TOTAL TERRY Grand Total Percent Black White WAKEFIELD Grand Total Percent Black White WASHINGTON Grand Total Percent Black White WATSON Grand Total Percent Black White WESTERN HILLS Grand Total Percent Black White WILLIAMS MAGNET\"' Grand Total Percent Black White 24 5 2 0 77.4 16.1 6.5 29/93.6% 2/6.4% 4 40 5 50 1 I 10 9/90% 1/10% 0 6 100 0 0 0 6 50 12 31 100% 10 100% 6 100% 0 0 31 6.5 93.6 6.4 0 0 10 2.1 90 10 0 0 6 1.3 6/100% 0 4 1 33.4 8.3 10/83% 2/17% 1 8.3 12 lOOS 0 0 12 100 2.5 83 17 1 0 92.3 7.7 13/100% 0 3 60 2 40 0 5/100% 0 0 0 13 100% 5 100% 0 0 13 2.7 100 0 0 5 1.0 100LLEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS (EASON SCHOOL CODE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Summary -----TOTOTT , (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F M UTAL , LONG-TERM ,, (BEYOND 16 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL OT TOTAL WILSON Grand Total Percent Black White 8 6 0 0 57.1 42.9 14.100% ---------------------6------ 14 100% 0 0 14 2.9 100 WQDRUFF Grand Total Percent Black White McClellan HTUrmNDER- GARTEN---------- GRADE K Grand Total Percent Black White ELEMENTARY TOTALS Percent Black White 16 2 1 0 84.2 10.5 5.3 18/94.7% __________l/53_ U. 0 IL 0 1 1 100 0 1/100% IL 0 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1% 52/10.9% 3 .6 19 100% 1 100 476 99.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 4.0 94.7 5.3 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .2 100 2 67 1 33 0 0 3/100% 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15' 1/100% 0 89.2 10.8\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1174","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas State University. College of Education"],"dc_date":["1987/1988"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1174"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["232 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n(])ukski County Jnterdisfrid ~net School (])rogram evaluation  Booker Arts  Carver Basic Skills/ Math-Science  Williams Basic Skills  Gibbs Foreign Language/ International Studies 1987- 88 Mann Arts \u0026amp; Mann Math/Science  Parkview Arts Magnet High School Off ice of Educational Research and Services College of Education Arkansas State University AN EVALUATION Or ':P.E PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTR.!CT :,!..\\GN::'.T SC:iOOL PROGRAM Prepared For The Magnet Review Committee Conducted by Office of Educational Research \u0026amp; Services Arkansas State University June, 1988 Donald E. Wright, Director Virginia A. Rhodes, Office Manager ~ABLE OF CONTENTS Credir.s ................................................. Acknowledgment:s ........................................ . 3ackground ............................................. . Jata C8llection ........................................ . =~s tr'.. .: mer: 1: '.Jevelopme.!! 1: ............................... . Secur:..ty of Dat:a ..................................... . ?opulatic~ Demog~aphics .............................. . Data Analysis .......................................... . Data Processing ...................................... . Analysis P!\"ocedures .................................. . Comparison of Populations ............................ . Statist:1.cal Analysis ................................. . Sumrna:?:\"y Statements ..................................... . Appendix A Appendix 3 Appendix c Appendix D Appendix E .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. 6 26 26 27 29 50 64 67 68 70 72 76 :::valuat.ion Team: ~esearch Assisc.ant.s: CREDITS Dr. William G. Chance Dr . Deborah L. Smit.h Dr. Herman Strickland Dr. Donald E. Wright. Tammy Arms Sandra Brown Carolyn Buchanan Suet.ta Burge Becky Cooper Sheryl Holbrook Betty Hopper Linda Massen Angela West Gaybreia Williams i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A scudy o: =~~s cc~plexity cou~d not have been cc~\nleted ~ithouc c~e ef:orts of many people. ~e are indeed grateful :or the cooperation and assistance of Ms. Donna Grady Creer. ?rogram D~::-eccor, 2.r1d :he program secrecary r!s. ::2.!\":dy !:...:..\nehrs. ~heir personal characceristics are only exceeded ~1 their attention to c~e decails necessary for managing such a project. Our appreciation is extended to the Magnet Review C0rr.raittee, especially t~e evaluation sub-commi:cee. :or their sincere cooperative attitude, general guidelines, and prompt reactions. The study could not have happened without the assistance of the building principals. Their efforts and cooperation were essential to the on-site fact-finding and questionnaire data collection stages of the project. Our hats are off and our thanks extended to William Finn at Soaker, ~ary Guinn at carver, Donna Davis at Gibbs, Edwin ~ackson at 'ilil~iams, \"Jictor Anderson at Mann and -Iunious Babbs at Parkview. ii SAC KG ROUND ::-.a.gr.et. scnool program serving a school populacio:-. c: ~indergarcen c~rough high school . A precedent. tad been established i~ St. ~ouis when a met.ropolit.an coor~l~a:~~g =ommi:::ee was creat.ed by the federal cour:. T:--.e .:..r.za:-.sas ::-.andate however, may be the first time t.hat a mult.i-cist:rl=t ::-.agnec s=hool\nrogram was i~st.igat.ed t.o serve a regular ~-l2 sc~ool populat.~on. A number of rat.her t.horny quest.ls~s had co be resolved before t.he operat.ion could even get. of: :~e ground. The :irst. series of questions revolved about. :~e composition of the Magnet Review Committee and t~e nacure of its \"oversight. role\". Federal Judge Henry Woods o: the iJ . S. Jistrict Court, Eastern District Arkansas, ruled t~at. each cf :he defendant. school districts would appoint one member :o serve on the ~agnet Review Committee. The defer.cant. S:a:e Department of Education was required to appoint r.wo ne~bers t.o this commit.tee. Finally, in response to a sui: by :'!rs. ~orene Joshua, et al., the Joshua Intervenors were al:owed to appoint one person t.o the Magnet Review committ.ee to serve in an ex-officio capacity. Judge Woods stipulated t~at Joshua Intervenor representative shall be non-voting\nb~t. shall otherwise be entitled to participate in all aspeccs of t.he deliberations of the committee. However, in lat.er action, the Joshua Intervenor representative was assigned =~ll membership responsibility. 1 :::: - .,::._. ~s. Eoard c: ~ducac:ion (8th C:.r. June 8, :937 ) . :te Ci~y Boarc had ccntended t~at the Metrcpo~:.::s~ Coordinat:.::g Comrnitt.ee had infringed upon t:-.e po.,ers \"ceser--,ed t.o the aoard of Education. This contention was reJecced. ~udge Woods r~led, jased on t~is f\"_nding, t~at :~e ~ag::et ~eview Commic::ee's role is co make recorunended --:\n:-:\n\"_:.-:.'f decisions regarding the operation of the magnet sc~cols. Those decisior.s should then be com:nunicat:ed, a '\"'rit:::en \"!'.'eport, t.o the court for approval. A number of discussions relative to financial support and staffing were ~ade based on compromises and a succession of court orders. A per ~upil expenditure o: $3,100 was esc:ablished. The st.ate \\vas directed to pay one-half this cost and the host. district:: t.he \"!'.'emainder. The state was also directed to pay all magnet student transportation costs. The host school district was in the throes of a massive staff reassignment and chis was subsequently modified by judicial order. T~e test. school district assigned teachers to the magnet schools with consideration given to teacher request. Pupi.:.. seat:: allocations were established on a ratio basis whi.:..e a\"_so seeking to ~aintain racial balance in each sc~ool. A Magnet Educational Team (M.E.T.) was identified and charged with responsibility for recruitment of students and the 2 ::andled t~rough the pupil placement o::fi~e ct :~er.cs: sc:1ool . Ulti~ately six si:es were selected i~ :~e ~os: s::.:es 't.Jere elementary and :~ey consisted c::: , :.\n:':coke:::-\n..r:s ~agnet School ~ith emphasis on the perfor~::.~g ar:s, ) \\ ' - I ?oreign Language/I~ternat.:.o~al Studies Magnet School, a~d ' . -, I ,\u0026lt;/illiams Basic S)dlls Magnet School. At the J\"unior School level the Mann Junior High School became t~e t~o-phase :::agnet school .:eaturing \"':~e arts\" and Math/Sc::.ence. ~igh sc:1ool .:.evel ::-.e Parkview high school became t~e Parkview Arts/Performing Arts Magnet School . An evaluation team was identi::ied from Arkansas s:ate At tr.e University (See Appendix A) and an agreement was negotiated with the Of:ice of Educational Research and Services (02RS) for the evaluation of the first year's operation of the ~agnet School ?rogra~ in December, 1987. The negotiated agreement contained the following assurances and understandings: l. The applicant assures that at completion of the proJect an evaluation instrument will be developed. 2. The applicant agrees to provide training to appropr::.ate personnel on administering the approved evaluation instrument. 3. The applicant assures the approved instrument .:.s developed and training completed on or tefore February 1988. 3 The applicanc assures thac he/she will orovide ar:. analysis o: the daca. T~e applicant agrees to write a report ~ased c~ t:.~e -.::ompucer searc:-:es :,-1ere initiaced i:1. December, :\n_937 ar:.d c.3.ta programs were reviewed. A meecing involving key r.,eni.bers of che evaluation team. and the Magnet Review Ccl1T.littee was held in late January, 1988 to reinforce understanding and sc~edule on-site visitations by the evaluacion tea~. -::':--.e magr:e t:. elementary schools ,-1ere visited by the teain c:--. febr:..:acJ : and 8th , 1988. A return visit to the secondary magnet schcols was made on March 3rd, 1988. The review of the literature, particularly Blank et:. al., identified the following factors as contributing to a successful magnet school program: , .1.. District-wide access for students on the basis of voluntary preference. 2. A curricular theme that is definite, appealing, and distinctive. 3. A principal and a staff composed and disposed to deliver on that theme, as advertised. 4. Instruction thac is reviewed by the district fer its rigor and fairness (accountability) . S. Good transportation and school security services. 6. Student and Staff composition that closely reflects the racial and ethnic composition of the system. 4 A nechcd of checks and balances c~ac will\nrevenc 3 . Scare-up funds for ~acilicacing early success a ~d ~~plemencacion. (See Note) Note: This paper summarizes Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyzing a Model for Quality Integrated Education. ?inal Reporc of a National Study, by Rolf K. Blank ec al. (ABT Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA. and James H. Lowry and Associates, Washingcon, DC., September, 1983. 428p., ~~IC ~ocument Number ED 236 304). 5 DATA COLLECT:ON ':'!:e evalua::::..c:1 (.ea..'ll conducted an ex(.e,,sive r-eview of\nerci:-:ent resear~h literat.ure relating tc ffiag:-:et school programs i:-: t:ie United States. Attention was part::..c...1larly focused en programs ir.i tiated in the past\n:en years. ':'~.e purpose of the review was to validate the seven ~ey variables presented by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) as descri~\n::ors of the int.er-dist.rice Magnet School Program of Pulaski c~unty. This review process sought to establish bot.h the viabili\n::y of the descript.ors and their complet.eness. ~he evaluat.ion team ut.ilized information gained from t.he research literature to establish sources for more in-depth informat.ion. Telephone contacts were made with representatives from what were apparently the most successful magnet school programs in the United States. The selected programs are located in St. I...ouis, Mo.\nRockville, Md.\nHouston, Tx.\nDallas, Tx.\nand Kansas City, Mo. The evaluation team utilizing information accruing from these sources concluded that the seven key variables presented by the MRC, i.e., Philosophy, Policy and Practices\nParent and community Involvement\nResource Allocation\nStaffing and Leadership\nInstruction\nProgram and Student Outcome were both valid and complete when utilized to define the dimensions of a successful magnet school program. Based on this judgment, the evaluation team utilized these key variables as category components to develop the evaluation instrument. 6 -:':-.e evaL.1at.ion t.eam idenc.:.:ied t.hree S:)ec.:.:.:..::: populat::.::::-.s or groups from which t.o solicit: .:.n:or~at:.cn regar~:.~g t.he magnet sc::col pro\u0026lt;\nra.'TL. ':'::ese populat::.cns .,ere t:eacher-s :.:1 c::e ~ag~ec schools, students int.he magr.et schools, and ~a.rents of students in the magnet schools. :'he evaluation team utilized data gener-at:ed oy tr.e informat.ion search and operat.ional definit.ions develc~ed fer each of the seven variables t.o develop a pool of quest.:.ons appropriate for each population. The operat.ional defi:::.t:ion for each variable was stated in the following ter-ms: Philosophy, Policies, and Praccices: I know and understand the policies that govern this school, the procedures that are ut.ilized to iillplement these policies, and the thrust. of the magnet. focus of this school. II. Educational Program: I feel the instructional program has sufficient. depth and breadth to provide a strong foundation in the basic skills while adequately addressing the ident.ified magnet theme and teaching studencs to funct.ion effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. III. Staff and Leadership: I feel this school has a positive climate for learning characterized by positive interpersonal relations, the lack of racial tension, and high expectations for students. IV. Resource Allocations: I feel the facilities, materials, teacher/pupil ratio, security arrangements and transportation services are 7 v . :!1s tY'J.ct.:..c::: : feel t~e ~~struction provided by t~is school ~3 cons:.stent ~ith its stated goals and s~ppor:s :::e VI. :ommunity =~volvement: ::::.s I feel :~e public is i~formed of act:.vi::.es re~at:.~g to this school and that there is active icvolvement of parents and other members of the community~~ :his school. VII. Student Outcomes: This school promotes a positive attitude ir. st~dents toward school, other races and their educational progress. The pool of questions grew to a total of 256 questior.s before the jury consensus technique was employed to scree~ the items for duplication and appropriateness, and reduce the mass of items to a reasonable and usable number. The following matrix presents the final distribution of items by key variable and population group: a Parent: Teacr.er Student TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS By Variable and Population Group PPP PCI RA SL I p 5 8 3 6 3 5 4 4 6 8 5 7 3 2 4 4 4 2 PPP - Philosophy, Policies and Practices PCI - Parent Community Involvement RA - Resource Allocation SL - Staff and Leadership I - Instruction P - Program SO - Student Outcome 9 so TOTAL 5 35 3 37 6 I 25 ?allowing agreement on a draft cf the t~ree separate, 8Ut si~ilar questionnaires, each ir.strument was subjected to an .:.:::partial evaluaticn by a ccr:-,puter progra..11t to determ::.:--.e tt'.e readability level and ~anguage appropriateness of eacn instrument. The team was consciously concerr.ed t~at every respondent must be able to read and understand each item on his/her instrument in order to submit quality responses. To further validate the suitability of the instruments, tte team conducted a field testing of the instruments with similar populations that was not a part of the evaluation study. After revisions in questionnaires and instrument format, t~e proposed instrument was presented to the MRC for review and approval. The MRC approved the questionnaire items and format with minor suggestions. These suggestions were incorporated into the final draft of the three evaluation instruments. 10 Security of the data is a maJor concern when an evalua==r depends on another person or persons to adr:linister i:-:.str .. :.rc1ents and collect:. data for use in the evalc.:.atic::-.. :':-:e evaluation team is confident that the magnec scnool and administrators, and the MRC Director and of:ice teachers conducted their functions regarding instrument administration and data collection in a precise and professional manr.er. The following data collection activities will document tr.at the data was secure and professionally treaced. On March 10, 1988, an informational workshop outlining the data collection procedures was conducted by an evaluation team member for the magnet school building principals and the director of the MRC. The evaluation team members presented and discussed the specific data collection procedures (See Appendix B). Included in this presentacion was a discussion of a letter to each magnet school faculty member detailing participation in t~e evaluation process (See Appendix C). The building principals were requested to distribute the information letter to the faculty and follow all other administration and collection procedures. 2. on a date set by each building principal, each teacher of grades 4-12 administered the questionnaire to his/her students. These forms were collected by the teacher, placed in a large, sealed envelope, and returned to the building administration office. The Director of the MRC, notified of the administration date and time, returned the instruments from each building. On selecced dates, 11 t~e MRC of:ice for~arded t~e sealed envelo~es 3. Work~~\nccopera~~vely wich che building profess~o~~l ~or ceachers co complece che questionnaire. ~his occurred during a scheduled faculty meeti~g and c~e teacher was designated to collect the corepleted instr'--'I!lents, place in a large envelope, seal the envelope and return ic to the building administration of:i:e. According to procedure, the MRC Director retrieved t~e envelope and =~rwarded tte sealed envelope to tte 02RS. 4. Follow-up procedures were established and implemented to encourage teachers and students that were unable to complece the questionnaires on the given date to submit their responses for inclusion in the study. 5. The Director and office staff of the MRC reailed a questionnaire directly to all parents of magnet school students, K-12. This mailing included instructions and a stamped addressed envelope for returning the completed questionnaire to the MRC office. The MRC office forwarded all returned responses in the sealed envelopes to the OERS. The building principals assisted with the parent survey by encouraging parents via the school newsletter and parent meetings to complete and return the questionnaires. 6. The office manager of the OERS received and checked each questionnaire package, recorded the number, the population group, identified the completed instruments 12 and verified che i~cegricy o~ che security process. ,  All daca recording and analysis were conduc~ed by ~he scaff o: ~he 02rtS. ?roper =aution a~d concern was exercised during c~e daca recording and che compucer progra~ Statistical ?ackage for c~e Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in data analysis. 13 ~~e evaluati~n team developed questions :o so~i=~= :eac~ers,\narents, and students. These q~est~~ns ~ere ~resented to the MRC for review and approval. ~he cemograp~ic data were utilized to describe t~e pop~lat~~n and :o assist with data analysis. ?opulation data on the records of the MRC indicated t~ere were 247 magnet school teachers of grades K-12, 2382 ~agnet school students in grades 4-12, and 3372 parents of magnet 3c~ool students ~n grades K-12. To insure every member of all t~ree pop~lations equal opportunity to respond to :~e instrument, every member of each population was provided a questionnaire and invited to respond. The acceptance for questionnaire returns was closed (May 11, '88, which was eight weeks after the initial mailout), with the following results: 230 or 93.1% of the teachers had returned completed questionnaires\n2201 or 92.4% of the students had returned completed questionnaires\nand 1676 or 49.7% of the parents had returned completed questionnaires. Twelve parents reported two or more students in the magnet school program. The data for these parents were recorded only once and allocated to the first school/child listed on the returned questionnaire. A very small number, less than one percent, of the questionnaires were determined to be unusable because of incorrect markings on the instrument. The characteristics of the three population groups are presented as population profiles. The first item on the questionnaire identified the school being evaluated by the 14 :eachers are ass~gned to Mann Junior High\n354 s:~den:s grades 4-6 attend Booker Elementary and :18 s:~dents ~races 4-6 attend Gibbs Elementary\nand that 237 parents ~a~e s:udents attend~~g Carver Elementary and 252\nare~:s ~ave students attendi~g ?arkview High School. 0 z: Cl) 1- z: UJ .::::i ,::-:i Cl) I.J.. C) 0 z: TEACHER DATA: SCHOOL 80r-----------------------, 72 ..... .... ....................................... ..... ............................   64 ................................................................................................................................. . 56 48 40 ... 32 ... 24 ... 16 .. . 8 .. . 0 wLMS GIBS SCHOOLS - TEACHER ASSIGNMENT STUDENT DATAI SCHOOL STUDENT RTT~NDS 800r------------------------, 720 ............................................................................................................  640 560 480 400 320 .. . 240 .. . 160 .. . 90 ... 0 90KR WL.MS GIBS M~NN SCHOOLS - STUDENTS BY SCHOOL 13 PARENT '.JATA: SCHOOL CHILO :-a TT:: '.CS 400 360 J? 320 280 ... ..J.J -=:: 240 ct 200 ... LL 160 ... 0 120 ... 0 z: 80 40 0 BOKR CFIVR wLMS G18S MANN SCHOOLS - PARENTS BY SCHOOL ~evel placement o f t~e student in questi~n. The studer.: profile data shows the highest grade l evel attendance was reported for the fifth grade (322) and the lowest for tje ninth grade (180). The parent profile data reveals ttat ~~re parents of students in grade five responded to the questionnai res (2 28 ) and t~e lowest r.u.'1tber c : parer. ts responding had s t udents in grade nine (6 2 ) . U\") ~ z: w  ::::l ~ U\") LL 0  z: STUDENT DATA: GRADE LEVEL 400----------------------, 360  ... ...... ...... ... ....... ........... ...... ......................................... . 4 - STUDENT'S 16 (fl \u0026gt;-- 0 z:: PARENT DATA: GRADE LEUEL 300.--------------------------, 270            240    ..... ........ .. .. .. .... ... ........ ........ .. .... .. ... ..... ............. ...... .......... ....... .... ... ... .......... . 210 ..... 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 K l 2 5 6 GRADES - CHILO' S GR LEU EL 11 T~e gender o: t~e teact.ers and of t~e st~dents was req~es:ed t~e great maJor~~Y of responding teachers were fema~e (:~8 ~~ 41). The students' gender was much more evenly distr~j~:ed (1161 female, 1029 male, 11 did not complete item). (J) a::: w :::c u \u0026lt;C UJ ~ u. 0 0 z:: TEACHER DATA: GENDER 2001-----------------------, 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  - SEX OF TEACHER 17 1500 1350 .)J 1200 - :asu = 380 ,- ~) 758 ~ 600 450 g 300 150 0 STUDENT DATA: GENDER Fi::MALE SEX l'VO - SEX OF STUDENT :~e r3ce cf tte respondent was requested ~re~ al: :~ree ..... ,.... ....... . :::l- ......... .. -. --- __ __, ... gro:.:\ns . rt\"\"'!:)\n::-.::,,,,- -=- ----- i~::erence for this descr~ptor with 154 o: the 2}0 teac~ers ~de~t~:ied as white\nwhereas, tte parent and student\nrc:.:ps were fairly even in distribution. The students respond~r.\nwere 1129 black, 1003 white, 61 other and nine did not complete this item. Responding parents were distr~buted in :~e :allowing way: 857 white, 769 black. 37 otters anj :J ct~ not complete this item. TEACHER DATA: RACE 200 180  ..................... , ...................................................... . (f) 160  ................................................................ , .................... . ~ w 140 :I: \"\"ooooOOoooo u \u0026lt;J: 120  ........................................................... . w r- 100 ....................................................................... u... 80 0 oooo\"\"\"'\"\"\"oo\"''\"oo 60  0z : 40 ....................................................................... \" .. \"'\"\"''\" ............. ....................... . OTHER - RACE OF TEACHER 18 (.fl fz: ~  ,- v) Ll... 0 (./) ~ z: ~ \u0026lt;%: CL 1..1... 0 0 z: STUDENT DATA: RACE l 500r----------------------- 1350 ...........................................................................................  1200 .......................... ......................... ................................................ , ...................... ....... .. :050 ..... . ............ ,.,    900 750 600 450 300 150 0 900 810 720 630 540 450 360 270 180 WHITE OTHER RACE - RACE OF STUDENT PARENT DATA: RACE , ..................................................................... .   , ..................................................................... . ....................................................................... ' ... -~- .................................. ' .............. . ....................................................................... 0TH RACE - RACE OF PARENT The location of residence was asked of both the student and the parents. The student profile data revealed the majority of students lived in the Little Rock District (1658 of 2201 or 75.33 percent). The parent profile data revealed an almost identical percent (73.33) of the parents reporting lived in tr.e Little Rock District. 19 STUDENT DATA: SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 1800 (j') 1600 '-= 1400 .LJ g 1200 ,- (f) Hl00 LJ.. 800 0 600 a z: 400 200 0 LR NLR PC SCHOOL DISTRICT - RESIDENT SCH DIST PARENT DATA: SCHOOL DISTRICT 1250 112~ (f) 1000  ................................................................. . f,-- z: 875 ~.z: 750 -- a.. 625 LL 0 500 ....................................................................................................... 0 375 z: 250 L.R NLR M  O SCHOOL - RESIDENT SCH DIST 20 ~~\n:l~ -..-.,-..,-.\"\"'_ - ..-.:::- _.._._ .. .._ .. ...,, ..... _ .. _ ---- :::: ............ -- --...,,:- ... - ----- ,,-_::::,---:::i,,,... ... ~--- --:::i. -----::,\"-----~ ---- c\n:::-eac r:-.:.11.:)e:::- of 1:.telr sc~ce::1:.s a!1d :eac,.ers ,\noLlc. ::e .:.:-. r.~s/her seco::d year of residency at ctac sc~col. revealed t~at 1:_je ~aJor.:.cy of teachers (139 or 6u.4%) ~ere sc~cencs (1 :88 or 54%) were ~ew co cjac schco:. 200 180 U) a:: 160 w ::c 140 u 120 \u0026lt;I: w ~ 100 I.J.. 80 0 60 a z: 40 20 0 1500 13~0 U) 1200 ~ z: 1050 w 0 900 :::::i ~ U) 750 aI.J .. 600 450 a z: 300 TEACHER DATA: TEACHING ASSIGNMENT NO RESPONSES - 2ND YR. SAME SCH. STUDENT DATA: ATTENDS SAME SCHOOL ..................................................................................................................................  .............................................. , .................................................................. . NO RESPONSES - 2ND YEAR SAME SCH. 21 ...................................................  ................................................... ................................................... -- ......................... . (.J) I- :J.J .L -1: a.. L1.. 0 g 1.000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 PARENT DATA: CHILD ATTENDS SAME SCHOOL NO RESPONSES - 2ND YR SAME SCH A question included in demographics of teachers is \"How ~uch experience do the teachers have\"? The profile data reveals ~~at the teachers in the magnet schools ~ave cons:jera~:e experience with a slight ~ajoricy (119 or 51.7%) ~av:~g over a:even years of teaching experience. TEACHER DATA: TEACHING EXPERIENCE 200 180 (.J) 0::: 160 , ............................. , .................................................................................... , .............. . l:Jc.J 140 u 120 \u0026lt;I: lJ.J I- 100 LL 80 0  ........................................................... . 60  40 20 0 0-5 G-11 11+ YEARS - YEARS EXPERIENCE 22 1000 900 ,(J-') 800 z: 700 w  600 ,::-:i (.f) 500 u.. 400 0 300 Cl z: 200 STUDENT DATA: TIME ON BUS 68+ MINUTES - TIME SPENT ON BUS . .... .. .... . - ,_ --- J ._, _ . c - _nan attempt co facilitate the ir.:erprecac~on and/ ~r description of the results of the study, several add~t~G~a: quest~cns were asked of the parents. The subseq~enc responses allowed the evaluat~cn team co descr~~e t~e parer.: par:~:~pants as :ol-ows: The ~ajor~:y of the ~arents 57.6%) are between 31 and 40 years old\nthe mothers cf :r.e magnet school students have an education level beyond ~~gh scjool and the largest group of mothers (640 or 40.7% o: those responding co this item) have a college degree\nthe father's educational level, as reported by the 1219 respondents co the item, is beyond high school and c~e 23 PARENT DATA: AGE 1000 900 .(/-) 800 z: 700 u.J a::: 600 \u0026lt;I: il.. 500 LJ... a 400 a 300 z: 200 100 0 \u0026lt;20 - AGE OF PARENT PARENT DATA: MOTHER'S EDUC 700 630 U) 560 ,- z: 490 u.J a::: 420 \u0026lt;C Cl.. 350 LJ... 280 a a 210 z: 140 70 0 HS  GED \u0026gt;HS COL LEUEL OF EDUCATION - MOTHER' S EDU LEVEL 24 PARENT DATA: FATHER'S ~~UC 700 630 U) 560 t:\n: 490 G:j a::: 428 \u0026lt;I: Cl.. 350 1..1... 0 280 0 210 :z: 140 70 0 \u0026lt;HS HS  GE  \u0026gt;HS LEUEL OF - FATHER'S EDU LEVEL PARENT DATA: RESPONDENT ID. 1400 1260 U) 1120 \u0026gt;z-: 980 ~ 840 \u0026lt;i: a. 700 u.. 0 560 0 420 :z: 280 140 0 MOTHER FATHER GUARD BOTH RESPONDENTS - WHO COMPLETED FORM PARENT DATA: CHOICE OF SCHOOLS 1500 13:50   \"                 \"'''' ' ''''' ' '''\"''''''''''''''''''' ' '''''''''''''''''' U) 1200  .................................................... . \u0026gt;z-: 1050 \"''\"''''''''' I.U a::: 900 \u0026lt;i:  a. 750 \" u.. 600 0  ........................... ,  0 450   :z: 300 ............................................................................................................. 1:50 ................. .............. ........................... ............. ... ...................... ............. 0 2ND 3RD 4TH CHOICES - CHOICE OF PARENT 25 \",.' r   - .... ~ ---,.-\\l . ..1 !. .:::, _.,:\n:::rough ::::-.e use o:: s~rvey .:.:-.str.1..':'.encs see~i:-.\nres\n:o::ses :c carefully construcced i:ems relaci::g specific~::1 :c eac~ variable. A di::erenc number of questionnaire i:ems, relat.:.::g co t~e key variables, was developed :or eacn :\n)Opulac.:.c:: group. ':'~is desi,\n:-. .,,\nas to acco.:::..'11cdace :::::r ::--.e differences in che group's k::owledge, involvement, and interesc. Data Processing Each respondent was asked to reacc to the questionnaire wi:h a sincere actitude using the following scale: SD Strongly Disagree with the s:acement D --- Disagree with che statemenc A --- Agree with the scacemenc SA Strongly Agree wich che scatement To begin the staciscical analysis, it was necessary to assign numerical values to the categories of responses (i.e. SD=l, 0=2, A=3, SA=4) on che questionnaire and similar type nu.-noer va~ues for che demographic variables (school, grade, sex, race, etc.). In a few cases a respondenc neglecced to respond co a particular statement. If this omission occurred four or more times, the quescionnaire was labeled as incomplete\nhowever, if omission occurred less than :our :imes che q~estionnaire was accepced as complete. T~e 26 ass.:.c\n::ed .::. ::~::-.er :.::=.l value o : ze:r::,  J) . After ::-.e evaluatc..on team recel.'/ed -\\.,e ~\"c c::-  _ __ ,,. ~ 0 ,. one i~dividua_ was respo~sible for p~ac:.~g a~ icent:.:::..::ation number on each form as i:. ar:::-:. '1ed. 2 . Demog:::-aphic data was coded as well as t~e ca:.egcr:.es of responses to the questionnaire items. values were placed in the right hand ~argl.n of a~~ questionnaires to facilitate the transfer of nu.'1\\bers to coding forms and for veri:ication of accuracy o: :.~e coding procedure. 3. Two research assistants were selected and tra:..ned to enter all data on the mainframe computer. T~ese were :.he most skilled keyboard operators on the team. 4. Verif:..cation of data entry occurred at :.hree sepa:::-a:.e stages of the recording process and one time after :.~e data was entered on the computer. Analvsis Procedures The initial stage of data analysis was descriptc..ve i~ :or~. cumulative summary information provided frequency distri~ut:..ons, graphs, and a measure of central tendency (mode) on each demographic variable and questionnac..re 1:.em. After examining the distribution of variables (via frequency distributions), cross-tabulation contingency tables were computed to investigate the relationships a~ong the 27 7~e scac~st~cal analys~s a~ t~e data in the numbers within eac~ of the population groups ' ~.e. :20 teache:rs, :676 parents, 2201 st-.:dem:s), pracc:.cally as.su:::-ed a highly signi~icant dif~erence would be found when t~e c~i-square statistical test ~as appl:.ed. Yet, ~c :.s :reccg~~=ed as one of t~e better tests ta use with frequency repo:rced data. ~~e:re is no question as to the validity of the statistically significant differences, for indeed the:re were differences found. It is tte obviously missing \"practical significant difference\" that caused the evaluation team to further investigate the identified differences. ~hese additional analyses were conducted utilizing the demographic var:.ables to sub-divide the population into a managea0~e size. These additional computations, although requi:::-i~g considerable work-hours, permit the evaluation team to :remain confident in the interpretation of the data. 28 )--~C:r\"r -- ..... .., ----:--.....,---=~ seven ~ey variables. (See Appendix :':). ':':-.e s\n::\nec:..::ic q\nest.:.2:-.::aire :..::ems by number and scaterner::::: ::2r eac:: 1ar:..ab:e and eacn populat:..cn is presented prior tJ c~e graph.:.c displayi::g tje response. T~e ~ey variables are preser.ced belO'l'I. P~ILCSO?~Y. ?OLICY, AND PRACT:CE person~el policies. 13 . : am acquainted with the program goals and object:..ves for this magnet school. 18. I am familiar with the information in the staff handbook. 32. I a~ familiar with the student recruit~ent procedures for chis school. STUDENT :~E~S: 8. I know and understand the rules that govern this school. 14. I chose to attend this school because of my i~terest in its magnet theme. 17. I am familiar with the information in the student/parent handbook. PARENT ITEMS: 10. I know and understand the rules that govern this school. 17. I am acquainted with what this school is trying to accomplish. 29 21. a mac\nne:::: sc:-:ccl. speci:ic ~agnet :ocus. The responses to the above statements deter~i~e teachers. parents. and students have a knowledge and procedures t:-:at are utilized to i~plemen:::: ::::~e polic~es. and the thrust of the magnet focus of the school. The accompanying graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement a~ong the three populations for the variable Philosophy, ?olicy, and Practice. 30 (fj w ()) z: 0 CL (Jj w Ct:: LL 0 ..... z: w u Ct:: w CL 60 50 40 30 20 10   COMPOSITE RESPONSES: PHILOSOPH'r', SD D A TEACHERS PAREt\"~TS RATINGS OF AGREEt1ENT E] STUDENTS ET AL. SA - .:::. - -= - ...... ' - - - .~ acc:.vely involved i:1 :tis sctool. ::. 3. =:1.:c:r::-,a::.on c.bout t:-.e magnet school p:rogra.-:'. __ ,\n:.-::.e .:..y disseminated i:1 cte community. :.3. :r:emt:e!:\"s o::: :te cc:nrr,un1.ty (other t:-.an pa!:\"en:s ) c ::te:1 ::--.e .:..p with sc~ool programs and activities. PARENT :'.::'E:'1S: 11. I a~ actl.vely involved in this school. School personnel are cooperative when deal:.~g ~:.:t ~e. Members of the community (other than student:s' pa!:\"er.:s ) ~re act~vely involved i~ this school. 26. ~he community is aware of this school's magnet p:rog:ra~. 31. I want ~Y child to attend a magnet school r.ext year. 36. I would encourage other parents to send their ctild:ren to a magnet school. 40. I receive information about activities at my child's magnet school in plenty of ti~e to attend. 43. I feel at ease working with people of other rc.ces school-related activities. Responses to the above statements reflect the attitude o f :eachers, parents, and st~dents toward the public being 32 ,....-----. ..... ----- - .... ...... -- -...... --~!'-\"-.::.!.::, :cespo:-::\nes ::-.~ee 33 _,,..,.. ~,... ..... -::: - -==--- ,.... ....... ,.....' ~ - .. -- ... ::\"'-~--.-- '--'-'\"'-' C0~1POSITE RESPONSES: PARENT /COtv1M IMUOLU 70.-------------------. (I) w 60 ................................................................................................................................. . (J) -r. i- 0 (L (I) w er: LL 0 rz: w u ~ w 0... 50 ............................................................................ .. 40 ............................................................................. . 3 0                                                          .-.:.-.:.-.:.-. :             ...... ........ . 2 0                                                           ::::::::              10 ............................. . ..... ....... .... . ............................... . 0 ~t/0 SD D A SA RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT  TEACHERS lliJ STUDENTS 0 PARE~1TS STUCENT CU~CCM2 T2AC~ER I~EMS: ~ Studencs exhibit a posicive accicude c~ward sc~ool under che magnec program. 37. This school gives studencs a unique educational experience. 39. Students do not j eopardize cheir success in reg~:ar curriculum classes by participating in magnet cjeme classes or activities. STUDENT ITEMS: 13. I enjoy being a scudent in this school. 21. I am able to work well in a classroom made up of different races. 23. Most students of different races get along well with each other at this school. 26. I would like to attend a magnet school next year and would also encourage my friends to attend. 28. I have time to participate in magnet theme classes and/or activities. 31. Participating in magnet theme classes or activit~es does not hurt my grades. PARENT ITEMS: 16. My child has a positive attitude toward school. 20. My child usually understands the work he or she is doing. 25. My child functions well in a racially-integrated classroom. 34. My child has ample opportunity to participate in classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 35 42. The magnet theme does not interfere witr. my child's success in learning the basic skills. The responses to the above statements reflect the opinions of the teachers, parents, and students regarding the school promot~ng a positive attitude in students toward school, other races, and the educational progress being made. ~he following graphic displays the distribution of responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Student Outcome. 36 (I) w (J) z: 0 CL (J) w (}: LL 0 J: z: w u Q: w CL COtv1POSITE RESPONSES: STUDEtf T OUTCOME 60 50 40                      I  I  3 0 -............................................................................. . 20 10 e             I  I  I   SO D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEMENT STUDENTS SA rf\"\"'\" l ~2SOURC2 AL~CCATION support ~Y ir.structional efforts. :6. The participating school districts are supportive c ~ :he magnet program at this school. : 7. :n-service programs are available i:i rr.y school '\"'h.:.c:: relate directly to the theme and purpose of this magnet school. 24. Security arrangements in this school provide adequate safety for students and personnel. 28. My classes are of an appropriate size to accomplish the specific goals of this magnet school. 34. The facilities are adequate for the accomplishment of this school's goals and objectives. STUDENT ITEMS: 10. Teachers use many kinds of materials that deal with different racial groups. 15. My classes are the right size for special theme activities. 22. This school is a safe place to be. 32. The school building is satisfactory for all classes. PARENT ITEMS: 12. Transportation to this school is satisfactory for my child. 27. Security arrangements in this school provide safety for students and personnel. 38 37. : think this school's materials, equip~ent, and perscnnel are equal to or better than t~at cf ~ost area sc~ools. The responses to the above statements reflec: :he feelir.g of tte :eachers, parents, and st~dents regardir.g the fac_~i:ies, materials, teacher/pupil ratio, securi:y arrangements and transportation services and the adequacy of support tJ ensure a sound educational program in this school. The following graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the amplitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Resource Allocation. 39 (J) L1J (j) z: 0 a.. (Jj L1J O::'. LL 0 1- :z: L1J u ~ L1J (L COMPOSITE RESPONSES: RESOURCE ALLOCATIO~~ 60 50 40           I  30 20 10 _.. ............................. .   SD D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1ENT ......... STUDENTS SA ob]ec:c.:..'1es ~-= thls scr:co.:... 9. :!'::..s --.-.h.....,,.....,i ~\"------ ru~ong staf: ~embers and students. 15. There is pcs2.:.:..ve, dynamic, and i:movat.:..\ne i:1str..1::::.:.::::\n-\na.l. leadership in this school. 20. I would like to teach in this school next year. 25. The teachers in this school are fair in dealing wich students. 29. There is no racial tension among the staff. 35. Communication systems are open and ongoing between administrators, staff, students, and parents. 41. Teachers in this school have high expectat.:..ons for their students. STUDENT ITEMS: ~l. People in my school are friendly. 19. The principal in this school is fair. 27. There are no racial problems between the students and people who work here. 29. The teachers in this school expect students to do their best. 33. The teachers in this school are fair. PARENT ITEMS: 13. Personnel in this school are friendly. 19. There is an energetic and creative leadership in this school. 41 is f.::.ir working w:.th and\niarerlts. s t:t:.den ::s. J2. T~ere is no racial tension between t~e sta:f a~d parents. 38. Teachers in t:h~s school have high expectat:.cns f~r t~eir students. The respcnses to the above statements reflect ::he feelings of teachers, parents, and students regarding the school having a positive cl~mate for learning characterized by posit:.ve interpersonal relations, the lack of racial tension, and high expectations :or students. The following graphic displays the distribution of responses and the magnitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Staffing and Leadership. 42 (J) w (j) z: 0 CL (J) w 0:: LL 0 .,_ z: w u 0.: w 11. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10   COMPOSITE RESPONSES: STAFF \u0026amp; LEADERSHIP SD D A TEACHERS PARENTS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT EJ STUDENTS .................... T2ACH~R :~2~S: :o. : have ~~~e co plan lessons, work with ~Y st~dencs, chec~ t~eir work, and provide feedback. 22. : have adequate access to resource personnel co promote the ~agnet t~eme in this school. 26. Curriculum committees study the interrelationsh~p o: t~e regular curriculum and the magnet theme. 31. Magnet theme classes do not interfere with the basic curriculum. 36. Classroom procedures in this school support the dign~ty of all racial groups. STUDENT ITEMS: 12. My teachers check my work and tell me how I am dong. 16. I am learning something connected with the magnet theme in most of my classes. 24. My teachers explain things clearly, and I know what they expect me to do. 30. Members of all races have places of importance in my books and classroom activities. PARENT ITEMS: 14. My child's teachers check assigned work and let my child know how he or she is doing. 29. My child's teachers explain things clearly and let my child know that is expected. 39. The materials and procedures in my child's classes support the dignity of all racial groups. 44 :::::e s::::oo agreemenc/d~sagreemenc among che chree popu:acio::s :c~ :::::e variable Inscrucc~on. 45 (J) w (Jj z: 0 CL (J) w er: LL 0 1- z: w u ~ w 0.. 60 50 40 30 20 10   COtv1POSITE RESPONSES: IMSTRUCTION SD D A TEACHERS PAREr1TS RATINGS OF AGREEtv1ENT [ill STUDENTS ?ROGRA~ TEACHER I~~MS: 2l. ~his school ~rovides a strong educational :oundat~o~ in the basic skills. 27. ~here are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. 30. Students have ample oppor:unity to participate i~ classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 33. There are enough different academic courses in this school. 38. The Magnet Review Committee is supportive of the program at this school. 40. I feel that the magnet program helps students to function effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. STUDENT ITEMS: 20. This school provides a strong background in all the basic skills. 25. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. PARENT ITEMS: 15. The magnet program in this school meets my expectations. 24. This school provides a strong educational foundation in the basic skills. 30. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet theme. 33. My child has ample opportunity to participate in classes and/or activities that reflect the magnet theme. 47 The responses to the above statements reflects the feelings of the teachers, parents and students that the ir.structional ~rogram has sufficient depth and breadth to provide a strong foundation in the basic skills while adequately addressing the identified magnet theme and teaching students to function effectively in a racially-integrated classroom. The following graphic displays the distribution of the responses and the amplitude of agreement/disagreement among the three populations for the variable Educational Programs. 48 (() w (() z: 0 0... (0 w Ii: LL 0 ~ z: w u IL w Q_ 60 50 40 30 20 10   COtvlPOSITE RESPONSES: PROGRAM SD D A RATINGS OF AGREEtv1EMT TEACHERS PARENTS E:J STUDENTS statistical Analvsis In order to analyze and interpret the data, the statistical technique \"chi-square\" was utilized. This technique was selected because of its power in analyzing frequency data result~ng from questionnaire responses. Because of the extremely large number of responses, the evaluation team anticipated large chi-square values signaling highly significant differences. Following the statistical analysis via computer program, this anticipation became reality. According to Robert L. Winkler and William L. Hays in Statistics: Probability, Inference and Decision, Second Edition 1975, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pages 832-33, \"If the sample size is very large, as it should be for the best application for the (chi-square) test, virtually any 'degree' of two statistical relationships between attributes will show up as a significant result. The test detects virtually any departure from strict independence between the attributes for these large sample sizes\". Winkler and Hays contend that with large enough sample sizes, chances were good for statistical significant difference on almost any two qualitative attributes via the chi-square test. To compensate for the inflation of significance due to large sample sizes, further analysis was conducted to measure the strength of the association between the attributes in question. This lead the evaluation team to apply the Pearson Contingency coefficient to the computed chi-square va1.ues in order to measure the strength of association among the population groups and their ratings on the key variables. 50 -:'he range of \"strengt:h of associat:ion\" is from a low of 0.00 to a high of 1.00 with marginal associat:ion accept:ed at 0.20. ~he following matrix illust:rat:es the computat:~ons for both the chi-square test of independence and Pearson's Cont:ingency Coefficient: for each of the seven key variables: PEARSON CHI-SQUARE KEY VARIABLE CONTINGENCY VALUE COEFFICIENT Resources 182.37 .209 Inscruct:ion 108.043 .163 Student Outcome 168.72 .1570 Community Involvement 320.42 .276 Staff \u0026amp; Leadership 184.886 .210 Philosophy/Policy/Practice 98.12 .155 Educational Program 68.76 .130 Required value for significance df=6\nchi-square=22.457 P\u0026lt;.001 Suggested value for Contingency Coefficient strengt:h of association\nC=.20 51 :r.e very high c~l-square values i~ply a hi\nhly signi:icant. di::erence among t.he t.hree populat:l:ir:s :o:::- each and every \narlable JUSt: as was expect.ed. :his would seem t.8 ir:dicat.e tr.a~ teac~ers, students, and parents would race the items dif:erent: on the key variable being measu:::-ed i.e. when a respondent. belongs t:o a part.icular populat:ion it is predictable as t:o how that. person would rat:e that. key variable. However, when t:he cont.ingency coefficient. is applied to the chi-square values and consideration is given tot.he large size samples the probability of predictlng t:~at a part.icular memner of a population group would rat.e t.~e variable as \"Strongly Agree\" or any other oft.he rat.lng values, the chance of success is approximat:ely one in five or 20%. (Note: ut.ilizing this analysis, Resource Allocat.ion. Community Involvement and Staff \u0026amp; Leadership were significant.). What became apparent. to the evaluation t.eam was that. differences did exist\nhowever, the strengt.h of associat.ion in most. instances was negligible due to the rnajorit.y of responses being skewed toward the positive (agree and strongly agree) end of the scale. The chi-square technique report.ed significant. differences because a far greater number of each populat.ion group rated the key variables as agree and strongly agree than was statistically expected. Likewise. far fewer members rated the key variables as disagree and strongly disagree than was st.atistically expect.ed. (However, the evaluation team, understanding the parameters of the magnet school program study and the characteristics of the 52 con:iient o: t~e interpretat~on ) . ~rovided suf:ic~ent evidence ~o indicate that :~e Key variables required further analysis. ~hese addi:~onal analyses consisted of using the demographic variables to deter~ine ~= sub-groups of t~e population would prov~ie evidence for further interpretation. The analysis involved separating each population's response by key variable and demographic components. The chi-square technique was utilized to determine if the factors of the demographic component responded differently to the key variable. :or example, did the teachers from the six schools respond differently to the key variables? The team was particularly interested in the key variables Community Involvement, Staff and Leadership, and Resource Allocation, but, decided to conduct the analysis on all the variables. The computed chisquare value was compared to the required value for significance at P\u0026lt;.05 level and the statistical analysis summary is presented for each population group. Initially for each population, joint frequency distributions were computed for each key variable by demographic descriptors to identify significant differences. With each of the seven variables successively held constant, demographic descriptors which were identified as significant were then compared with the other significant demographic descriptors. Chi-square tests were computed to pinpoint these areas of significance. 53 si~gle demographic descriptor or the i~teract~cn of t~o sJch descr~ptcrs wo~ld have minimal speci~ic i~pact on the p~rpose of the study, elected to present consensus statements regarding each key variable rather than address each significant difference. The intent of these additional statistical analyses was to provide further insight i~to the parameters of the key variajles and to assure the reader o : the depth of the search for relevant information. The summary of statistical analyses for each key variab~e by demographic descriptor for the teacher population is presented below: PHILOSOPHY STUDENT ET AL. OUTCOME SCHOOL NSD so SEX NSD NSD RACE NSD NSD TEACHING EXPERIENCE NSD NSD TEACH SAME SCHOOL NSD NSD STATISTIC.AL ANALYSIS SUMMARY KEY VARI.ABLES BY DEMOGRAPHICS TEACHER PARENT/ STAFF/ RESOURCE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVE.ME.NT NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD NSD so NSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE so: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE INSTRUCTION NSD NSD NSD NSD so There were no significant differences for the demographic descriptors for the variables Philosophy, Policy and Practice\nStaff and Leadership\nParent and Community PROGRAM NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD Involvement\nor Educational Program. The consensus of the evaluation team regarding the remaining key variables and the 54 scudenc Oucccrae: ~he difference becween schools on c~1s ~ey variable is che magnitude o : agreement ~1th the variable statements. Eighty-~1ne percent of the teachers agreed and/o r strongly agreed with the statements :er this variable. Resource Allocation: ~he differences found fer th~s variable were with the amount of teaching Instruction: experience, and were teachers assigned to the same school as last year? ~he dif:erence for each demographic descriptor was small and between the agree and strongly agree values. The analysis revealed that teachers with the most experience that were assigned in the same school as last year strongly agreed with the statements in the key variable ~esource Allocation. The difference found for this variable was the strength of agreement by the teachers for the descriptor \"assigned to same school as last year?\" The teachers that were assigned to the same school last year tended to strongly agree with the statements contained in the variable Instruction. 55 ~~e s~r\n1.mary o f stat~scical anal yses : o r e ach ~ey va ri ~t l e by demographic descriptor for tje student populatic~ i s presented below: S7ATIST:CAL ANALYS I S SU~ARY !\u0026lt;E:Y VARIABLES 3Y J EMOGR.APH I CS S7UDENT PARENT / I I I PHILOSOPHY STUDENT STAFF / RESOURCE COMMUNITY I NSTRUC7:ON P~OGRAM ST AL. OUTCOME LEADERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVEMENT ! i aI STRICT NSD NSD l .3CHOOL  s o NSD I GAADE I  s o so SEX I so so RACE NSD NSD ATTEND SAME SCHOOL so NSO BUS so HSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE  s o: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE NSD so so NSD so so NSO NSD so I NSD NSD I  s o I  s o NSD so  s\n:i NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSO NSO so NSO so so The significant differences for the student population for  s o  s ::i  s o NSD NSD so NSO tje demographic descriptors were found for key variables of Philosophy, Policy and Practice\nStudent Outcome\nStaff and Leadership\nParent and community Involvement\nInstruction and Educational Programs. The consensus of the evaluation team regarding these key variables and the significant demographi c descriptors are presented below: Philosophy et.al.: The significant differences for the descriptors were found between the agree and strongly agree values. Students of both sexes that were near to the magnet 56 I I chirty minutes tended to strongly agree with the statements assoc~ated w~=h =~e variable more than other students. :his was true fer all grades and ~or al_ schools. S~udent Outc8~e: S~gnificantly more females than ma~es responded strongly agree to the statenents in this variable. Males tended to agree with the statements, but, some males disagreed and strongly disagreed. ~he ratio of percepticns were generally t~e same for all grades. Staff and Leadership: The great majority of students view the staff and leadership of the magnet schools in the high positive value of the scale. However, differences do exist. Several students in grades 5, 7, 8, and 12 at Booker, Mann and Parkview schools tended to respond in the low agree-disagree area. More black students, especially black females, that are attending tr.e same school as last year tended to respond in the low agree-disagree range. However, students of all races in all grades that are new to the magnet schools tended to respond in the strongly agree area. Resource Allocation: An inspection of the analyses for resource allocation failed to provide one 57 percepc~cn cf C~-s var~ab:e covered :~e enc~re scale c f ~al ues\nyec, :~e di::erenc~ate bet~een :~ese di::ere~ce s. ?arent and Co~~u~ity ~~volvement: The parent and cc\n..\n:iun~:y involvement was another c f t~e key variables ~hat students ~eld dif:er~ng perceptions. The typical secondary st~dent responded to this variable in the : ow agree-disagree area, whereas. elemen:ary students responded in the agree-stror.gly agree area. The secondary students from the Little Rock district responded a :ittle more severely than the students from the other districts, yet, transportation or grade of student had little impact. Realistically, the secondary studencs responded as expected regarding parental involvement with their schools. Instruction: Another of the key variables where students held differing perceptions. There were several differences among the scnools and between the grades. The elementary students, especially, at Booker had higher perceptions\nwhereas, secondary students particularly grades 7 and 10 responded with larger ratings. The students that cid not 58 ac:end a ~agnet schccl :~s:\near, generally responded in tte agree-s:rongly was minimal and non-dif:erer.tiating Detween grades and/or schools. Educatio~al Programs: The significant differences provided by the demographic descrl~tcrs regarding this key variable was basica:ly the magnit~de of the agreement with tte variable statements. The identified differences was evenly spread out among all schools, all grades and all districts. The accumulation of this difference is what computed to be a significant difference. The only noticeable dif:erence was that the students returning to Booker, Williams, and Parkview, and the new students at Carver, Gibbs, and Mann tended to respond in the strongly agree area. 59 ':'::e s:....:...--:-.:nar1 of sr.ac.ist.:..cal analyses fer each key ' ariable by demographic descriptor for the parent population is presented below: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY KEY VARIABLES BY DEMOGRAPHICS PARENT PARENT/ PHILOSOPHY STUDENT! STAFF/ I RESOURCE COMMUNITY INSTRUC7:JNIPROGRAJ'I! ET AL. OUTCOME , LElillERSHIP ALLOCATION INVOLVEMENT ~.ACE NSD NSD SCHOOL NSD NSD GRADE NSD NSD AGE so so DISTRICT NSO NSD MOTHER'S EDUCATION so NSD FATHER'S EDUCATION NSD NSD CHOICE NSD so RESPONDENT NSD so ATTEND SAME SCHOOL NSD NSD NSD: NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SD: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SD so NSD NSD so so so so NSD NSD NSD NSD I SD I NS\nJ NSD so I so I NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD NSD NSO NSO NSO NSD so so NSD NSD so so NSD NSD so NSD so NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD so NSD Significant difference were identified for six of the seven key variables for the parent population. Consensus statements for these six variables regarding the significant demographic descriptors are presented as follows: Philosophy et.al.: Any difference in the variable Philosophy, Policy and Practice can readily 60 I years of age with a tigher educa:~c~ :evei area. s:ucent Outcc~e: ~he parent popula:icn cons~stentl1 responded in the agree-str8~gly agree a rea. The mother generally completed :te questionnaire, was between Jl-4 0 years old child's assignment. The more :tese =~ree descriptors were congruent, the hiqter the probability the response was strongly agree with the statement. Staff and Leadership: Parents registered some identifiable differences in this variable area by demographic descriptor, but, this difference was in the magnitude of agreement. Black parents did not rate this variable quite as high as the other races rated it. The parents, all races, all schools, all districts, with both mother and father holding college degrees were more varied in their perception. Parents with less education tended to be in agreement with the statements regardless of race, home district, school attendir.g, or which choice they received. The 61 Resource Allocat:on: Over 90 percent of the parents ~eld perceptions in the agree-strongly agree area for this variable. If both parents held col~ege degrees. the responses :ended assig:-:.~ent t~ey received. ?arent and Co:nmun:t1 =~volvement: mhere is a strong relaticnship between parents educat:~n Instruct:on: :evel and parental involvement with t~e schools. The higher the educational :evel, especially the father, the more strongly in agreement they were with the variable statements. The more active parents were between 31-40 years of age and tended to have students attending Williams and Car er schools. The differences recorded for this variable definitely resulted from the magnitude of agreement with the statements. Over 85 percent of the parents' responses were in the agree-strongly agree area. 1tlhite parents that received their first c~o:ce in assignment whose child had not previously attended a magnet school held the h:ghest perception of this variable. 62 educat::.onal prograr:i was so pos:..::...'e ::-.a::. ::.~e s~ac:..sc:..cal analyses :a:..:ed :c :._je~c:..:y one sign:..ficanc d:..ffere~ce regardinq t:~e demographic descr:..pcors. 63 3asEd -=~ --~~ ..... ,...,... --- - ........... -------::,.::\u0026gt; _,_ ----==\u0026gt; Cor..riuc-:ee a:!:\"e co:1s.:..st:er:i:: ,nch c::::-.:..t:e:?:\".:..2. p:.::):...:..s::.ed as charac-:e:?:\".:..st:.:..cs of a successfu~ ~agr:.ec School ?:!:\"og::::-a~. 2. ':'he superv.:..so:?:\"y or \"overseer\" :?:\"ole of c::e i\"!agr:.e-: ~e,1::.ew Corn.'T,.:..t:t:ee is consist:ent with the direcc.:..ons of :::--.e cour::. 3. ~he percept.:..ons of t:he chree relevant: ~agnec sc~cc: populac.:..or:.s, i.e. ceachers, students, 2.nd parer:::s are that t:hey understand and agree to the exis::.ence of ::he philosophy of the magnet cheme and the polic.:..es ar:d practices of the magnet school operacions . 4. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet: school populatior:.s, i.e . teachers, students, and parencs are that resource allocations are equitable and adequace for promoting the magnet school theme and ~ain::.ain.:..~g a safe, sound educational program. 5. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet school populations, i.e. teachers, students, and parents are that the staff and leadership of the magnet schools are energetic and creative in developing innovative educational programs, and fair and impartial in developing an educational climate conducive to social maturation and high expectations for student achieve~en::.. 6. The perceptions of the three relevant magnet school populat.:..ons, i.e. ceachers, students, and parencs are 64 -............ ~ ..... . . . \"\"' -----------, provides a strcng educational foundaticn l~ the aasl= skills, a.-:lple oppor:c.!nl :.y :or s:.uden\n::s to par:lcl\n:2.te , - t~e magnet :heme classes, and promotes socia: develcpmer:: in a racially-integrated environment. 8. ~he perceptlons of the three relevant ~agnec schoo: populations, i.e . teachers, students, and parents are that parents and community members are actively ir:vclved with the magnet schools. It appears that parents c: elemen:ary school students are more actlve:y involved and receive more information. 9. ~he perceptions of the three relevant nagnet sc~ocl populations, i.e . teachers, students, and parents are that the magnet school programs promote a positive student attitude toward school and c~e scr:ool cc:::.~~~l:y, coward all races and cultures, and coward excellence 1~ student performance. 10. ~he teachers with less teaching experience who are assigned to the magnet school for the first time are somewhat unsure of the interrelationship of the magnet theme curriculwn with the regular curriculum . 65 of t~e magnet :~eme are more suppor:~ve o: :~e sc~co: and t~e educational program than other students. the t~~ee populations within the six ~agnet schools. earned college degrees were more discri~~nato~y perception of the key variables. 66 -= .......... APPENDIX A Jr. :onald E. Wright, Ed.D. Univers_ty of Cenver Specialty Area: Research and Evaluation Experience: 1 years in public schools\n~eacner \u0026amp; Administrator 18 years at Arkansas Stace Universi~y. Professor. Research and Evaluat~on/ Educational Administration Dr. William G. Chance, Ed.D. Oklahoma State University Specialty Area: Curriculum and Instruction Experience: :s years in public schools\nTeacher \u0026amp; Administrator 23 years at Arkansas State University, Professor of Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction, Department Chair Dr. Deborah L. Smith, Ed.D. Vanderbilt University Specialty Area: Research \u0026amp; Evaluation/Cognitive Development Experience: 1 year at Arkansas State University\nAssistant Professor of Education 1 year as Coordinator of federally funded Outreach Program at Vanderbilt University 3 years as research assistant in Inscic te for Mental Retardation and Intellectual Development, John F. Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University 3 years private school teaching experience Dr. Herman W. Strickland, Ed.D. Ball state University Specialty Area: Elementary Education/Cognates in Curr~culum \u0026amp; Instruction and Educational Administration Experience: 11 years in public schools\nTeacher \u0026amp; Administrator 3 years Educational Director, Mississippi county Summer Headstart 16 years at Arkansas state University, Professor of Measurement \u0026amp; Evaluation, Director of Professional Education Programs 67 APPENDIX B ?urcose a: ~valuat~on: :eter:::1:-:e 1.:: se:ec:ed ~ey ~ariacles exis: a~a ~e\nree cf s ppor: :or sc~oo: :~e~e. r:. uestionnaire: A. Groups for data collection: 1 r'aculty: Al: sea:: :::e:-r..oers 2. Students: All grades 4-12 3. ?arencs: All parents :-12 Jata Collect~on: ?acul:y A. Jistrloute advanced ~nfor~ation 2.etter :o facul:1 . 3. Admi::.1.s ter :acul :y q'..!es t1or.:1aires\npre.::er c\nrou:) admin.istrat.ion. C. Date for completion: D. Return procedures: :t _s recommended :~at :~e building principal have a faculty represenca:ive. or building secretary, collect :he completed for~s. place in large envelope, seal envelope and await the pick-up from a representative of the MRC. IV. Data Collection: Students A. Advise faculty of date and ti~e for questlcnna.1.re administration. (Prefer all students ln a scnool complete the instrument at the same tl~e.) B. Absentees: The teachers should keep enougn blank forms (and parent forms) so that eacn aDsen: student and his/her parent will have an opportun.1.:y to participate in the survey. It is suggested :hat these forms be professionally processed :~rougn c~e principal's office to the MRC. (Maybe a:low one week for all absentees to complete.) c. Student return procedures: The completed questionnaires from each classroom wil_ be returned to the princ.ipal's office in a large envelope. Keep these envelopes in the office unt.1._ picked up by a representative of the MRC. D. Date for completion: v. Data Collection: Parents The parent questionnaires with stamped. addressed, return envelopes will be mailed directly to the parents by the MRC. The parent questionnaires should be returned directly to the MRC, however. in the event some are returned to the teacher, with or without the envelope, please handle in a professional confidential manner and ~ail :o the MRC. 68 \n:. ?ri:::c.:.\nals' Assisc.ar.ce: A. ~ac.erials needed: ... . Nwnber of faculc.y advanced i,.for:naci.Qr-. :..e:.:.ers equal :.c c.:-.e :::c:..7-ber o:: ::ac'..11 :.1 ::le!!'.bers :::.. ~s c.en. \u0026gt;lumber of fa.c:'..11 ty ques t:..:.or.naires equal :.:-.e r:wnner of faculi:y memoers plus :.er:. Number of sc.\"J.::ienc. quest:.:..::nr.aires equal :..:: s c.udenc. memners::.:.p\n)lus :.wen:.y. 4. ~en :arge manila envelo~es and :.wenc.y s:.~=\ned , addressed, recur:: envelc~es. 8. ?rocedures: 1. Cause faculty advance in:crmat:.:.on le:.c.er :.0 be disc.ribuc.ed ac. earliesc. opporc.~nity. 2. ?rovide a forum or equal opport~r.ic.y whereby each faculty member may receive a quesc.ionnaire, respond c.o it and file for return wic.hout fear of violac.ion of anonymity. 3. Sec. a dace and ti~e and i:::form teachers t~at this time is designac.ed to adminisc.er c.~e sc.udenc. quesc.ionnaires. The student quesc..:.onnaires will be disc.r~buc.ed to c.~e teacher or teacher's classroom. C. Collecc.ing rec.urns: 1. The principal's office is the central collecc.ion poinc. for c.he complec.ed facult1 and sc.udenc. quesc.ionnaires. 2. All data muse. be collecc.ed and housed in such a manner c.hac. professional inc.egrity will be exemplified. 3. Work cooperac.ively with all faculty and sc.udenc.s c.o obtain comolec.ed questionnaires from each and every one if they were unaole to comply on c.he set date and/or time. D. Forwarding Responses to MRC: 1. Inform the MRC of dates for picking up completed: A. Faculty Questionnaires 8. Studenc. Quesc.ionnaires 2. Inform c.he MRC of dace for picking up additional complec.ed quesc.ionnaires from absenc.ees. 69 APPENDIX C : 8L .... E::= : c =: 1...:C\n.. TION :)FF'CE :)F EDUCA71CNAL\n::::\nsEA\n:\nc --1 3,. SE::\nVICES \"' 0 EGX 940 STATE UNIVE\"SiTY A\n:1KAN SAS - : ~6iC9~0 -Ei...E?rONE o0' 972 ~2  - ,C ' ,ES3CPO -:1 ~.e :V!agr:e:. ?.. e,11.e1r1 -::: :r.. rn:..:.:.2e l..S cc:-:d1,.\n.c:.:..::\n-:::e :.:--.. ::. :.:.,=._ evaluatio:-. ::::.: ::-.e !:'.2.gnet\nroqram .:..:::. your sc::col c!:.o .,e :-.eea 1our assis:a::ce. =n order :o ga.:..:: a fu_l ~::ders:2.::c.:..::g o: eacn program. we are seeKing t~e opinions o: a:l s:ar.: mew~ers, scucents (grade 4 and up), and parents. ~te process ttac we have selected to obca.:..n ::hese opinions _s wi::t anonymous responses to a quesc.:..onnaire. process t~at we need your help. ::t lS wit:1 :::-. .:..s Will you p:ease assist us with the following items: 1. Your pri::~ipal will distribute a questionnaire for a:l facul::, to complete. Wil_ you please complete t ~e quesc.:..onnaire candidly and objec::.:..vely, and recur:: as directed by your pr.:..nc.:..pal. ?lease respond to a_: _:ems. ~ On a dace and :::.me selected by your pr.:..nc.:..pal, Ni:: Jou please nave your students in grades 4 t~rougn :2 :.:..:: out the questionnaires in class. ~ake sure ctey ~::ders::and that there are no \"right\" or \"wrong\" answers. ?lease provide any help needed with reading. ?lease place :::e completed questionnaires in the same large envelope i n which you received them, seal it and return i: to the princ.:..pal's office. Please imoress che s::uden:s wit::. :~e impor::ance of answer.:..ng all ques c.:..cns. (Please :-:eep enougn forms for aosencees and retur:: these t o t::e princ.:..pal's office for return to the MRC. ) J. en t~e same date that the students comple:e t~eir quest.:..onnaires, will you please remind :~e students co have their parents answer all questions. 70 II envelope from your pr~~c~pal, and\n~:=eec wic~ =~e ::.ai.:...:..::-.g process. Your princi~al wi.:...:.. =~rtner explain any procedures you~= r.=: =~.:...:..y unders=and and infor::l you of cje daces and =1=es :=r complecinq, colleccing, and d.:..sseminacing a.:...:.. =~e quesc~onna1res. ?lease return any unused ==r~s wi=h =~e completed ones. :: you need additional for::.s, er.velcpes. ecc., please c~ecK with your principal. 1::-.:luence or. c:e school progra~\n:~erefore, obcainir.g obJecc~~e responses :=8~ each memoer o: all :jree groups is cr1t~cal :or quali=y recommenaac1ons . ~he evaluacion team has caken every precaution co conduce a bias-free scudy, please assis= ~s wich C~lS ef:orc. Sincerely, Donald E. Wright, Director Of:ice of Educacional Researc~ \u0026amp; Serv1ces Arkansas Scace University 71 APPENDIX D ~ROM : RE : DATE : lv1agnet Review Committee 22nd and Poolar r. o. Box 687 :---.:onh L1ttle Rock, Arkansas 72115 E'otem:ial .::l.pplicants ':t'DJ1 1 .'1agnet Review Commi ttee1r~ M Ql Researcn and Evaluation Subcommittee Request :or Proposal to Develop an Evaluation Instrument ~overnber 10, 1987 The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) is pleased to announce the availability of funds to implement Phase I of t~e Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation ProJect. This will entail: l. meeti~g and conferring with representntives from the Magnet Review Committee, 2. development of an approved instrument, 3. training selected personnel on administration of the instrument, 4. analysis and interpretation of data, 5. a written report. Items l., 2., and 3. should be completed on or before February 1, 1988. Completion dates for activities 4. and 5. will be determined by the Magnet Review Research/Evaluation Subcommittee and the grantee, but should be completed ~o later than May 1, 1988. The overall purpose of the evaluation project is to evaluate all magnet schools: to determine i: key variables are in place and to what degree, - to provide information to internal and external constituencies about the potential impact of the variables upon the operation of the magnet schools, 72 - to ?rov1de l~~or~at10~ to t~e mag~et school s:a~~ a~d t~e dlstrl=: ~~= l~provement. ~o achieve the 1n1tial goals and objectives of this evaluation proJect, t~e applicant ~ust demonstrate t~e ability to develop an instrument to evaluate the mag~et schools to determine i: the following key variables exist and to what degree they are supportive of t~e school t~eme: l. ?hilosophy, Policy, Practices 2. Parent and Community Involvement 3. Resource Allocation 4. Staffi~g and Leadership 5. Instruct1.on 6. Program 7. Student Outcomes. AVAILAaILITY OF FUNDS The maximum available amount of $3,500 will be funded for this proJect. The funds will be awarded in two installments. The first installment will be given at the mid poi~t of the project, and the second installment will be given at completion of the project. APPLICATION CONTENT The application should contain the following information: 1. assurances 2. expected outcomes 3. methodology 4 . quality of personnel 5. references 6. budget summary. 73 ~ach ap?li=ation will be reviewed by the Maanet Review Researc:1 : E':aluac.. on Subcommi t-:ee. ?inal se lect:.on a nd noti~:.cat:. o n will b e co~plete 1 on o r about De ce~ber 8 , 1 ?8 7. APPLICATIO~ DE~DLINE i\\pplications must be postmarked by December l, 198 7. Applications received in the mail and post~arked after December l, 1987 will not be considered for fundinq. Applications hand-delivered must be delivered by 4:30 p.m. on December 1, 1987. An original application and three (3) c opies should be :nailed to: Donna Grady Creer Magnet Review Committee P. O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 or hand-delivered to: Donna Grady Creer Magnet Review Committee 22nd and Poplar North Little Rock School District Administration Annex Room 105 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Questions regarding the application should be directed to Donna Grady Creer at 758-3545. ,\\1agnet Revieiv Co1n1nittee ::2nd and Poplar P o. Box 087 :'forth Little Rock. Arkansas 7:115 CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the Magnet Review Committee and the Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, ~rkansas State university. ~he Office of Educational Research and Services, College of Education, Arkansas State University agrees to prov1ae services as outlined in the proposal submitted Decer.~er l, 1987. ~he Maanet Review Committee agrees to compensate the above office up to $3,500 for services rendered. These services should be accomplished on or about May 15, 1988. Dr. Donald Wright, Di~or Office of Educational Research and Services College of Education Arkansas State University \u0026amp;j'/ Lta, onna Grady Creer, E~ut1ve ~agnet Review Comm1tt\"ee ~~/ Marcra Harding, Chairp'son Magnet Review Co::unittee Martha Nelsen, Director Pulaski County Educational Cooperative 75 APPENDIX E ::::::?,.::c:-:-:\n!'IS ~eaa eacn -~ ~~e scatements very carefu::1, ~nd -ji-~-~ tcw ~uc~\nou agree er t~sagree with each scate~en~ ~s~~g c~e ~=::owing scale: SA if you Strongly Agree A if you Agree D if you Disagree SD i: you Strong~y Disagree PLEASE ?LlT AN ( X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR C~OICE SA I A I o !so 1~101 6. I support the identified instruct~ onal goals and objectives of this school. 7. Parents are act~vely involved and .-----.----,.-----.------. make constructive suggestions for 12 1326 1133166 I this school. .__ ________ ._ _ _..__~ __ __,_ 8. ~his scnool has clearly stated, writ~en student and personnel policies. 9. There is a strong sense of belonging in this school among staff ~embers and students. 10. I have time to plan lessons, work 1 1 1 I with my students, check their60 8757 18 ja work, and provide feedback. '-----~----......_ _ __, 11 . I have a variety of multicultural teaching materials to support my instructional efforts. 12. students exhibit a positive attitude toward school under the magnet program. 76 io :--23-2 I\n~:, .~. I _::,._ J ~J . 'f,. Ir'\\ I .., -..I 1 - ~ . - a_.r'!l c.,......~-c. ~ ---~~ \"r:_ :.r.. :: :-. e p::::-og::::-a'TI c\n8a. __ s a ~.~ o:::: ect::..\nes : c :- :.~.:. s I :.J 2 19 : 12 ,J , - ::-:agr.ec .:c.::.:::c _. ~4. -- ~ece2.. / e ac:::..\ne support: =.nd co- c~e:r=.1:.:..::-:--. ::-:::::n rho pa~e!!t:S o::: :-r'.y 162 I :_4\n_ , i~ i.... .... - s :.-~cer. t. .s . :.. s. -:'::ere :. 3 pcs:..:::..le, C:1:-..a11ic, C!!d 2...:1novac.1../e .:.r:s ~r:..:c :.:.~:--.. al .:...eader- 199 II - \"\" 5 2 \"1' ' 2 sr:.:..p :. :1 ::~.:..s sc:1001. :6. ':'!\"le part:.::::.. pa c:..::g sc::ool d.:..strict:s are _ t.\nppor t:. \ne o ::: t::e f'.1.agnet\n):CO- !29 I :. :4 164 I:. 3 I :..o I grarri. at: ::.::1.s school. :.. 7. ::1-serv::.ce programs a:-e available . ..., -\n:'.'f sc:wol. .-1nicr. rela::e c:.:-ec ::.:... y 17 3 :..:9 IL 3 4 ::o ~~e c::eme and purpose of 1::-ll S magnet: school. :..s. - - =..'Tl fa..111.1.:.2.r Witt the i.::for:::iat1.cn j:os I LJ 3 2 14 in che scaff handbook. 19. ~embe:-s of t!:.e communicy (other t:han parents) are actively 138 1-23 163 12 14 involved in this scnool. i:.48 j67 Is I I 20. -- would like to teach in th.:..s 1: / 9 school r.ext year. 21. 'I'his school provides a strong edu-cat:.. onal foundation in t:~e basic 1134 js7 3 13 ' J s lnlls. 22. I have adequate access to resource personnel to promote the magnet jsJ 1120 J21 14 12 theme in this school. 23. :nformation about the magnet school program is widely dis- 165 23 137 J2 13 seminated in the community. 24. Security arrangements in this school provide adequate safety 184 21 J 19 14 12 for the students and personnel. 25. The teachers in this school are 1101 1119 14 13 13 fair in dealing with students. 77 -::-33-3 28 . 29. 30 . ~~~e~~e~==~~~s~i~ o: ~~e regular .:::\"-- ,... ,,_ .. ~ a:1d t~e ::.agr.e:: c:--.eme. ~~ere are er..:::ugh d~::erer.t cc~rses o::: :::2rea -\n:.:-.e mag:.e\n: ::.:-.eme. ~Y classes are of an appropr~ate size co accc~plish ::.::e speci:~c goals o: t~e magnet: sc~col. ~here ~s ~o racial :ension amor.g cte staf:::. Students ~ave a~ple opportunity co parc~cipate ~r. classes and/or act~~~t~es\n:~at reflect the ::-.agr.e t: ::.::eme . In II .- u' '4 j120 1100 la 31. ~agnet :~eme classes do noc ~ncer- jo6 1125 130 fere wit~ the basic curr~culum. 32. I a,~ familiar with the student recru~t:~ent procedures for this school. 33. T~ere are enough different academic courses in this school. I .:::- I ~ I 'J I\" I J JS I I\n. I jo 12 j3 34. The facil~c~es are adequace for .---------.------,---, the acccmplishement of chis js1 1122 148 18 I- school's goals and objectives. ._ _____ _._ _____ ____ 35. Communication systems are open and ~--~-----,---......,...-----, ongoing between administrators, j83 j 110 129 is j 3 staff, scudents, and parents. ._ _____ _._ ______ ___, 36. Classroom procedures in this school support the dignity of all racial groups. 37. This school gives students a unique educational experience. 38. The Magnet Review Committee is supportive of the program at this school. 78 41. ~~asses by p~rc~=~pac~~~ ~n ~agnec :~eme c:asses er ac:~~~=~es. : :ee: :~ac :ne ~agr.ec prograr.i. ~elps s~~Ce~cs :~ :~~c~~~~ e::ec~~ vely ~n a rac~a::1-in:egraced c.:..assr::::::::,m . ~eacr.ers ~n :~~s scnoo: ~ave h~gh expec:acions :or c~eir s:~dencs. 79 s: l ~': / 'J I' j 93 122 I lOO I :. :.s I 3 Studenc ?crm: S-88 ~eac eacn c: c~e scatemencs ~ery care:~l:y, a~d '-~-~=-~ ~=w ~~c~ you agree or disagree wich eacn s:ace~e~: ~s.:.~g =~e ::ol.:.owing scale: Ylark Ccl'...:. .1. 1.n SA A i D i SD : you Strongly Agree you Agree you Disagree f you Strongly Disagree ?LEASE ?UT AN ( X) IN THE COLUMN OF YOUR C~OIC2 I STUDENTS SA A 8. : know and understand the rules 1832 /1222j109 /21 / 17 that govern this school.     9. My parents are actively involved 1314 1911 1765 j201/10 in this school. ::.o. ~eachers ~se many kinds of mater-, ials that deal with different 410 1848 1575 j298j70 rac.:.al groups. . . __ ?eople in my school are friendly. 1486 112561285 j156j -8 _2_ My teachers check my work and 1678 /1025,369 j116j13 tell me how I am doing. . .  13. I enJoy being a student in this 1874 /964 j207 i139j17 school. . . . 14. I chose to attend this school because of my interest in its magnet theme. 15. My classes are the right size for special theme activit.:.es. 80 1744 1754 1467 j223113 j527 j1146,J87 1116125 j S-58-2 SA I '\"'- -~  _ ~~ ~e~r~~~: SO~e:~~~\nC8~necc- ~-----------ad wi=~ =~e ~agr:ec =~e~e ~~ mos: JsJ4 i::391,- - :J : !:? o :: -::-.y c2.3.SSeS. cicn ::..~ c~e s=~den=\nparent !\"landbccK. :s. ~emners of t~e cc:-:',mur.::..cy (other than parents) o fcen telp with school ~rcgra.'Tls ar:d ac::::..nt::..es . :9. T~e pr::..nc::..pal ~n this school is fair. 2 l. ~h~s sc ~col provides a s::rcng bacKgrouno 1~ a.:...:.. =~e basic skil2.s. : am able co work well i~ a classroom made p of di=terent r:.ces. 22. This sctool ~s a safe place to be. 14 30 !ass joo7 1711 1975 I !273 17 61 I   ~ o I ...,   - - J ~ -\"'%. !11921859 192 ls58 I L301340 ll ~-----\n,-,'::.,:\n1 ..,J :~ :4 128 156 I-:\" '-V I lo :s 1:.48125 23. Most students of different races ~-----r---,----~ get along well with each other 1675 l ::42 !261 1- 7 J26 I at th::..s school. 24. ~Y teachers explai~ things clear- !: ly, and I know wnat ttey expect js 99 - 84 j387 1-88123 me to do. L--____ __\n__ _____ _J 25. There are enough different courses offered in the magnet 1791 1934 13:8 l:2sl33 I school. 26. : would l~ke to attend a magnet school next year and would also 19 36 1685 127s j2 s9 j45 encourage my friends to attend. 27. There are no racial problems be-tween the students and people 1560 19 62 14 69 I:. 74 I 36 who work here. 81 .3-38-3 SA I ~ I J i ~J 1 ~ 1  1 _.,_ = :::ave :.:..::-.e ::::\n::::arr.:..::::..\n::2-ce .:..:\n7agnet :::eme ::: _2.sses a::d\n~ r 1:.:4 :J i3:..9 1:.::-i i 2s I : 3. ~eac~ers :'.'.:..s sc~~ol ex\n::ec: l 1::.83 I S:, I J4 1 :.a :cuce:::s :~ co c::e:..r =esc. 2J . ::emcers c :: al~ races ::ave p:aces of i~porc3nce in my bcoxs and 1767 j :.:26 j _34 163 / 61 I c2.assroom ac:.:..vit:.:..es.  ~ 1. ?art:.:..cipac:.ng i :1 magnet: c:-.eme classes or acc:1. vi cies does nee 1864 1991 1224 j s7 13s :-iurt: \"'Y grades. ~.., :'::e SC:'.OOl :::ic:ilding lS sat:.:..sfact- \\458 19 53 1436 1274130 c ry ::o:::- =..:.1 classes. 3 3. '!'he t:eacr:.e:rs in t:his school are 1460 I :os7 I 386 12s8j40 fair. 34. Jid you understand all quest~ons of this quest:..onnaire? YES l724 NO 429 M/0 47 If NO, which quest:ion(s) did you -oi:: ~nderstanc? ~ight of ~he thirty-three quest:ions were listed. Ten of the 2201 st:udent:s surveyed did not: underscand one of the questions. 82 ~,-.~ ,,-...r,.T' ._. ,._ .... -..,v...J ~e ac eac~ o: :~e s:atements very carefully, and ~~dica:e now ~~en you agree or aisagree wi~h eacn statement. ~s1.ng :ne ~~.:..:..:r1i!\":g sca.:.e: :1ark C.:::li.:...-nn SA i: you s:rcc~ly Agree A 1.: '/OU Agree J 1.: you Jisagree SD 1.: you Stro~gly Disagree ?LE.ASE ?U~ -~~ (X) :N T~S C8LUMN OF YOUR C~OIC2 I SA I A I D lsJ IM\noi :o. I know and understand the rules 1716 Jass 149 112 j14 I that govern t:iis school. 11. I am actively involved in this I 2n I 927 1365 165 142 I school. 12. Transportation to this school 1563 1836 I 138 1106133 is satisfactory for my child. I :J. ?ersonnel in this school are 1715 1817 1102 !29 ju I friendly. 14. ~y child's teachers check as- signed work and lets my child 1758 1753 j 116 127 12 2 know how he or she is doing. 15. !he magnet program in this 1699 1769 1141 145 122 school meets my expectations. 16. My child has a positive attitudejso2 1714 1110 135 J1 s I toward school. 17. I am acquainted with what this 1695 1876 ja1 i 14 I 10 I school is trying to accomplish. 18. School personnel are cooperativej763 1796 175 j28 114 I when dealing with me. 19. There is energetic and creative 1680 Jao2 1117 137 140 I leadership in this school. 83 I I SA ?-33-2 :::J. ~=~a_:y ~nders=an~s ~e ~ ~ s~e ~s Goi~g. = :: .. :n - =....,-   :~ .-nt::-. :::e .:..:-.:::ir- :nar.:.cn ___ ::-.e s r.'\"c.enr.1\n:arenr. :--.anc..::::co.'\u0026lt;. - i - :1e!!lDers o:: ::-:e cc:r_-:-_ .: .:..r.y (ct.her :nan s:~c.enr.s' parenr.s) are ac- 1~90 IB44 1~32 j82 :~81 cively :.~vo:ved int.his scnool. ~~e pr.:..nc.:..~al is fair in working\\618 \\88 4 177 with sc~dent:s and parent:s.  1 1 ~ Jo I 6:.. 24 . This school provides a strong j 1 educat:ional ::oundacion for t:he781 1785 js1 I 15 I 14 basic sk.:..2._s. :5. ~Y child f~ncr.:.ons well in a racially-.:..nr.egrat:ed classroom. :6. ~he community is aware of t:his \\360 1941 J2s 5 132 Jsa school's magnet: program. 27. 28. 29 . JO. Security arrangement:s in this ~--~----,.---~---~ school provide safety for 1344 !1019\\114 144 19 5 students and personnel.  The teachers in this school are \\435 l1021j141 121 146 :ai::::- ... .i dealing with students. ~Y child's teachers explain ~--~--\"\"\"T\"\"--~----, things c2.early and let: my cnild 1559 19 24 1144 j26 l2 J know wnat is expected.   There are enough dif:erent ~--~--\"\"\"T\"\"--~----, courses offered in the magnet 1576 1896 j1so !26 !2s theme. . .  J __ I want my child to attend a magnet school next: year. 32. There is no racial tension be- \\s60 1899 !112 120 \\e s tween the staff and parents. -  33. ~Y child has ample opportunity to parcicipate in classes and/ 1627 j s96 \\112 11 4 127 1 or activit.:..es that: reflect the   magnet: theme. 84 SA I A I D I SJ l ~ / O! ?-:38-3 34. ~v c::i!d benef~:s ~r~:n :~e 2 5. 36. 37. :-::~l r.:. -e ::::::.:.2 er:.,12.~~r...rr.en t:\n:::::-::::,vided ~Y :::is sc::col. ~~e recr~i:~ent procedures ~ro-vided ~e wich enougn i::~or~aci=:: 1492 : 97 I :_33 to make a c~oice aoout enro!:i::g~-----------my c~i!d in a magnet sc::col. : would encourage other parents to sena their cnildren to a :nagnet sc::ool. j sso 16,o In 27 I 27 : thir.k this school's materials. 1 equipment. and personnel are705 17 59 j 137 126 j 49 equal to or better than that of '-----'------....:.,_ ___ ___. most area scnools. 38. Teachers in this school have high expectations for their students. 1766 1779 Js2 1:.4 135 39. The materials and procedures in my child's classes support the js26 1929 j1os 127 ls6 dignity of all racial groups. I 40. I receive information about ac-tivities at my child's magnet 1492 1818 !257 ls1 l2s school in plenty of ti:ne to attend. 41. I enrolled my child in this 1789 1680 j 142 p school because of its specific j :9 136 magnet focus. 42. The magnet theme does not inter-I fere with my child's success in778 1809 147 j 1a !24 :earning the basic skills. 43. I feel at ease working with people of other races in 1794 !sos \\3s I j_9 123 school-related activities. 85 I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas State University. College of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_173","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1986-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), racial count"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/173"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS _.rRACIALC OUNT AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1986 ELEMENTARSYC HOOLSE XCLUDINGK INDERGARTEN BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Amboy 182 144 326 44.2% Argenta 93 90 183 49.2% Baring Cross 6 8 14 57.1% Belwood 66 49 115 42.6% Boone Park 232 237 469 50.5% Crestwood 125 89 214 41. 6% Glenview 129 81 210 38.6% Indian Hills 228 142 370 38.4% Lakewood 138 83 221 37.6% Lynch Drive 115 155 270 57 .4% Meadow Park 124 120 244 49.2% North Heights 226 112 338 33.1% Park Hill 133 65 198 32.8% Pike View 179 169 348 48.6% Pine 109 78 187 41. 7% Redwood 154 122 276 44.2% Rose City 110 81 191 42.4% Seventh Street 163 134 297 45 .1% TOTALS 2,512 1,959 4,471 43.8% ~ . - NORTHL ITTLE ROCKP UBLIC SCHOOLS 'RACIAL COUNT . , AS OF OCTOBER1 , 1986 BLACK SCHOOLS NONBLACK BLACK TOTALS PERCENTAGE Baring Cross (secondary students) 10 25 35. ' 71. 4% SUBTOTALS -w ~ 35 71. 4% SECONDARSYC HOOLS Central 453 263 716 36.7% Lakewood 349 121 470 25.7% Ridgeroad 338 271 609 44.5% Rose City 266 172 438 39.3% SUBTOTALS 1,406 827 2,233 37. 0% Northeast 775 301 1,076 28.0% Ole Main 659 417 1,076 38.8% SUBTOTALS 1,434 718 2,152 33.4% SECONDARTYO TALS 2,850 1,570 4,420 35.5% ELEMENTARTYO TALS (excluding kindergarten) 2,512 1,959 4,471 43.8% DISTRICT TOTALS (excluding kindergarten) 5,362 3,529 8,891 39.7% . . t\\l.,\nI Ll.'-\\L r.!1KULU1r.l1J !)f tV-\\1..,C i : October l , 1%6 B = Black W = White ,I -0 - Others - .F.::: :. Schoo1 Year: 1986-87 JUNIORH IGH.SCHOOLS . Uncr aded GRADE7 r.ilADE R I GRADE 9 Sub-Total Sub lis1.- ._Kinderqarten r.DANn TnTAI \u0026gt;-- 0 Tota I %,131. S C H O O L J,J B 0 ' w' B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 Tot ..... W 'B '  O  w B ' Dunbar 47 121 1 53 125 1 68 119 1 168 365 3 536 68 --- ---- --- 168 365 3 536 f\n:1 Forest Heights 36 187 1 38 198 0 53 175 3 127 560 4 691 81 --- ---- --- 127 560 4 691 81 Henderson 2 5 0 87 135 3 94 157 4 100 177 4 283 474 11 768 62 --- ---- --- 283 474 11 768 62 Mann 66 279 6 62 253 6 59 232 2 187 764 14 965 79 --- --- 187 764 14 965 79 Pulaski Heights 89 136 0 77 168 3 106 140 3 272 444 6 722 61 --- ---- --- 272 444 6 722 61 , i South~1est 54 181 3 65 159 5 55 144 2 174 484 10 668 72 --- ---- --- 174 484 10 668 72 i I\nTOTAL 2 5 0 379 1039 14 389 1060 19 441 987 15 1211 3091 48 ~350 71 --- ---- --- 1211 / 3091 48 4350 71 I - I I I I I i : I ': I i I I i ! ! ' I I I I ! I ' i I .. - I j : - -.~ - ~ - - - . - - ~ -- ~--: ::\n- - :\n. ~ -- ':'.\"'-\n:~-\n-\" - - - - . = .. --:~ \"~- - ~-\n:c .. .. .. OCTOBE1R, 1986 B = Black W = White ACTUAELt lROLLMENBYT RACE 0 - Others SPECIAi SCHOOLS\" ,. School Year: 1986-R? Unoraded GR A.DE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 11 Sub-Total Sub %Bl. ~Kinderoarten r.oti.tm TnTAI % Bl. I S C H O O L .__ \\,/ P. 0 \\-I P. 0 w I R 0 w B 0 w B 0 Tot :,,oKb w B n w B u 1ota1 .,\nith K i Easter Seal ! I I Francis Allen 1 2 1 2 3 66 1 2 3 66 I Fullerton 1 1 1 100 I 1 1 100 I JacKson county i Learning Center Pathfinder 2 ? 2 llnn 2 I 2 10n 1Pai?16~~dy Center I ! I n, T--- . - I c I Frankie Dennie - - United C. P11lsv ! ! ! I I I TOTAL I '' 1 5 .o I 1 5 0 6 R4 1 \" 0 I 6 A4 ' ' ' I I i I I I ' I i I ! I i *Handicaooed Schools ' ' I I i i j I\n' ' I I - i I' ! ' i ! I .. . ACTUAL ENROLLMENT BY RACE -- .. - OCTOBER 1 , 1981 6 B = Black w .= White - . o - Others Schoo 1 Year: 1986-87 HIGH SCHOOLS Uncraded Gr.ADE 10 GRADE 11 GRADE 12 Sub-Total ~~~. lis1..J-Kn\nd _e_r:art\nn f,RANO TOTAi H O O L 181. - S C w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 I W ! B 0 w B 0 Total Central 297 530 13 277 325 12 248 326 9 82? l lRl _3_4 2!131 58 11 'il 0 . 822 1232 \u0026lt;II 2088 59 Hall 209 269 :! 1 qi:\nlQ/\n:! l'il nn :! 555 i:\nqi:\n_g_ _ll5_9_ ...5__l 2:! 2 0 578 597 9 1184 50 : Parkview 9] 276 1 99 231 4 101 244 3_ ?Ql 7,\n1 ~ 1050 72 7 14 0 298 7r:.r:. 8 1071 _n Metr\np~l itan 3 16 0 3 16 0 19 84 3 16 0 19 -84 TOTAL .. \"\u0026lt; 1i\nn 5_9__1Z07 _5 17 i:\n71 7'i? lQ i:\nnn 700 15 11671 ?i:\n11-i 51 4265 60 30 67 n Inn, ?/\nln 51 4362 60 ! I ! I I I I I I I I i I\n' ! i !\nI I ' i' i I'\nI i I ! ! I i I ! I 1- : I I I I I I I I ' I I I I i i I I I' ' .. - ' ' .--- ACTUAEL~ ROLLMEBNYTR ACE .. .  B = Black OCTOBE1R , 1986 W = White .. . 0 - Others School Year: 1986-/37 INTERMEDIASTCEH OOLS Unc raded I G_f18_D4 E GRADE 5 GRADE 6 Sub-Total Sub lrn1,)_ Kinderqarten f.RANn TOTAi ~ %Bl. S C H O 0 L w B 0 w R 0 w R 0 w 8 0 w R 0 Tot. w R   0 . w R n Iota 1 Booker 4 28 0 77 _fil 2 61 107 \u0026lt; 71 R1 2 ?l'i ?Q7 7 519 'i7 --- ---- 215 297 7 'i1Q 57 ---- Franklin 26 86 ? llA '11 6 32 7R 4 102 2'i'i 1? 369 fiQ 1 /\n? n 105 317 12 434 7, Garland 8 11 1 17 7'i ? 1A Ill ? 15 81 2 58 ?llR 7 313 79 0 60 1 58 308 8 374 82 Gibbs 2 86 0 0 87 0 2 82 0 4 255 0 259 98 0 49 0 4 304 0 308 99 Pulaski Heights 31 90 1 34 95 1 27 97 1 92 282 3 377 75 3 10 0 95 292 3 390 75 Rockefeller 8 99 1 ? Q1 1 2 /:\nQ 1 1? ?\u0026lt;\nQ 1 ?71 Q\u0026lt;\n2 125 0 14 \"lQ\"l 1 400 96 Stephens 17 71 0 30 61 0 20 58 1 67 190 1 258 74 0 48 0 67 238 1 306 78 llashington 29 56 0 12 54 2 13 60 0 54 170 ! 2 226 75 0 45 0 54 215 2 271 79 : I I Total I I 12 39 1 207 644 8 201 667 15 184 605 11 604 1955 35 2594 75 8 399 1 612 2354 36 3002 I 78 I I I' I I ' I i i I -- ! ' I I i I ! I : I ! ' TOTAL . . . ,,,._, I U.-\"'\\L Llil,UL.Li'il:.11 \\ UI Kl\\l.,t OCTOilE1R , 1986 I ELEMENTARY I W: White i B = Black - 0 = Other Scbool Year\n1986-87 ' ' Ungraded Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 yS-U- B-TOT. - Kindergar. GRANTDG TAl -- w w w w w w .w yJ \\~ O 'To~a\nB B B B B B B B Sub B . B SCHOOL 0 0 Q,' 0 0 0 0 0 . Total %BL. 0 %S.L 2 17 7 6 14 11 14 71 12 83 I Ba 1 e 12 60 45 37 41 46 34 275 62 337 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 349 79 5 8 428 79 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 3 - -- Carver 67 80 66 59 52 57 381 71 452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 99 0 0 455 99 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Ish 8 69 37 50 57 51 45 317 43 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 100 0 0 362 99 6 5 2 2 2 !) c2 4 c6 King 80 63 49 59 44 43 338 37 375 2 1 2 2 4 0 11 371 91 3 14 415 90 Mitchel 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 73 60 44 49 49 41 316 46 362 n n n n n n n Cl1A QQ n n Clf\n4 qq 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 Rightsell 79 61 48 51 39 38 316 50 366 0 0 1 0 0 , 1 2 320 qq 0 ? ,7n QQ 12 13 11 9 13 9 67 16 83 Romine 69 83 52 65 61 56 386 80 466 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 456 85 1 4 i\n,\nci A4 34 32 21 20 21 24 [52 20 172 Western Hills 26 24 29 25 20 27 151 21 172 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 ,n~ \u0026lt;\nO n ? ~AC ~n 33 36 34 31 28 38 l?QQ 200 Wil 1 iams 39 39 35 36 40 37 226 ---------- 226 0 1 3 2 1 2 . . . 9 . .. 435 52  q ll,~ \u0026lt;\n? ' 32 22 16 13 9 17 i109 10 119 Wilson 47 54 44 41  41 47 274 40 314 2 0 0 o 1 1 4 387 71 0 4 4,7 I 7? .. 2 36 117 91 89 86 108 629 63 692  , TOTAL- ., 20 609 '546 454 483 443 425 2980 450 3430 ,. ' 0 5 3 9 5 7 5 34 . 3643. 82 9 43 4165 82 : ' ' ' ' .. . ACTUAELN ROLLMEBNYTR P,CE : . B:. Black OCTOBElR , 198 6 W = White ... .. 0 - Others PRIMARSYC HOOLS - School Year: 1986-87 Uncr aded G_88_Dl E GRADE 2 I GRADE 3 Sub-Total Sub 1-:m.~-Kinderoarten r,R11Nn TOTAL\n--- XBl. S C H O O L w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w B 0 w 8 0 Tot. .. W  R '  Q'  ii R 0 1o ta 1 --B-rady 0 3 0 23 _98 1 g QQ n 1i:\ni:\nc:\nn 'ill 254 1 309 8? ?A ?f\nn 78 280 1 .1'i0 78 Fair Park 18 8? _Q ,c:: c::o o q i:\n11 n 42 195 0 237 8? 12 47 1 54 24? 1 ?07 _ru Forest Park 35 78 l 111 /\n? 1 ?\u0026lt;\nC::A 0 94 Jg4 2 290 67 53 18 2 1117 212 4 363 58 Fulbright 3 'i n 18 11g n 19 85 0 11 88 o 51 297 0 348 _B.5 1/\n1/\n0 87 \u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026lt; n 420 79 Jeffe\"rson 4 11 o 711 71 1 55 41 n 42 56 1 175 179 2 'lC::/\ni:\nn 71 4 0 ?II/\n183 2 431 42 - McDermott 31 114 0 27 87 3 2'i qi\n1 83 296 6 1At\n77 45 26 1 128 322 7 457 70 Meadowcliff 38 94 3 29 83 3 .111 7? o 1101 249 6 356 70 1A ?? 1 139 271 7 417 c.65 Terry 55 127 1 36 79 0 11? AQ n 133 295 1 521 I 1 429 69 61 31 n 194 326 63 ! I Woodruff 24 71 0 13 56 3 14 53 0 51 180 3 234 77 17 14 ? 68 214 'i ?A7 7,\nI . ! I I '  1 ' 640 110 I Total I ' !57 7 19 O. 316 854 7 ~41 ?1A 626 4 784 2139 21 2944 73 357 244 7 1141 12383 28 i' 1C::C::? I : i I I I i l I I I I i I I I ' I j I , I . -\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":46,"next_page":47,"prev_page":45,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":540,"total_count":567,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":90},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":73},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":53},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":6},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":5},{"value":"Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation","hits":5},{"value":"Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":3},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":567},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":561},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":400},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":376},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":351},{"value":"School integration","hits":176},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":174},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":173},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":156},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":144}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":566},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":565},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":555},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":486},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Cambridge, Harvard University, 42.377, -71.11666","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":566},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":129},{"value":"1995","hits":120},{"value":"1996","hits":107},{"value":"1993","hits":98},{"value":"1997","hits":93},{"value":"1992","hits":85},{"value":"1998","hits":82},{"value":"1999","hits":81},{"value":"2000","hits":78},{"value":"1991","hits":77},{"value":"2001","hits":72},{"value":"2003","hits":62},{"value":"1990","hits":53},{"value":"2002","hits":53},{"value":"2004","hits":50},{"value":"2005","hits":47},{"value":"1989","hits":39},{"value":"2006","hits":31},{"value":"1988","hits":24},{"value":"2010","hits":21},{"value":"2008","hits":19},{"value":"2009","hits":17},{"value":"2007","hits":15},{"value":"2013","hits":15},{"value":"1986","hits":14},{"value":"2012","hits":14},{"value":"1987","hits":13},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"1985","hits":8},{"value":"2014","hits":6},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"1980","hits":4},{"value":"1981","hits":4},{"value":"1982","hits":4},{"value":"1983","hits":4},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"2015","hits":1},{"value":"2016","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1},{"value":"2018","hits":1},{"value":"2019","hits":1},{"value":"2020","hits":1},{"value":"2021","hits":1},{"value":"2022","hits":1},{"value":"2023","hits":1},{"value":"2024","hits":1},{"value":"2025","hits":1},{"value":"2026","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2026","count":1641,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":282},{"value":"reports","hits":194},{"value":"filing","hits":49},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":34},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":16},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"printouts","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":566}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":566},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}